FAILURES
(SINS) AND ATTITUDES (VIRTUES)
IN
SELF-REALIZATION
I. The Nature of Sin
In order to understand what sin is,
we must go to the history of salvation and find out in revelation its nature.
A. In the Old Testament
1.
Meaning of Sin:
“Sin” is a generic term and its verbal root means ‘to miss the mark’ or ‘to
make a false step’, and therefore, to fail to observe the norm laid down
(Proverb 19:2, (Gen. 29:9)
2.
A more expressive
term for sin is ‘pesha’ meaning fault or infringement, from the verb pasha: to
break a barrier, to be unfaithful, to rebel. Sin is the revolt of man against
God.
3.
In the OT, the
notion of sin is more religious than moral. Unlike the other Semitic religions,
the religion of Israel is based on the observance of the moral precepts. This
is the result of two things:
a.
The essential
nature of the religion of Israel
b.
The exalted
concept of the Justice of Yahweh
4.
The Justice of
Yahweh: the characteristic which distinguishes the transcendent superiority of
Yahweh from all other religions of antiquity is the fact that Yahweh observes
the principles of morality and justice in His dealing with His own people.
a.
Yahweh showed
Himself just, both punishing those who violated the moral laws and blessing
those who respected them. “I am the jealous God and I punish the iniquity of
the fathers in the children, even to the third and fourth generations…but I am
merciful even to the thousand generations of those who love me and keep my
commandments” (Ex. 20: 3-7)
b.
Yahweh castigates
with equal rigor the moral transgressions of His people making no distinction
between those who harm Him personally and those who harm other men. He shows no
more respect for kings than for ordinary men.
- Account of Yahweh’s Justice:
a.
The account of
the first transgression (Gen. 3
b.
The story of Cain
(Gen. 4)
c.
The account of
the deluge (Gen. 6-7)
d.
The dialogue
between Yahweh and Abraham on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah Gen 3: 10;
18: 23; 19:29)
e.
David commits
adultery (2 Sam 11-12
f.
Solomon becomes a
pitiless despot in Israel and Yahweh stirs up a revolt against him and prepares
the downfall of his kingdom. Solomon abandons himself to the luxury and display
of a pagan kingdom…and Yahweh brings the pharaoh from Egypt to despoil him of
his richness (1kgs 11)
6.
Nature of sin in
the OT. In the OT, sin is essentially a disobedience to the will of God. To sin
is to revolt against God, an infidelity that turns us away from God….Sin put a
separation between man and God, and makes Yahweh hides His face, i.e.. He too
turns His back from sinner and listens to him no longer (Is 59:2).
- Expiation and pardon of sin
a.
The people of
Israel were very conscious of their sins. They had feelings of guilt as it can
be seen in many penitential Psalms. (Ps 51,53)
b.
God is merciful
and He is ready to ‘wipe out’ to ‘take away’, to ‘remember no more’, to ‘put
behind’ Him the sins of His people; God is ready to pardon iniquities (Ex 34)
c.
The prophets are
constantly calling Israel to repentance to conversion, to return to Yahweh (Is
2:9; Amos 5: 6).
Since sin is a revolt of man against the will
of Yahweh, the prophets insist above all on the interior change and disposition
of man from Yahweh (2 Sam 12:16)
-Man
must direct his own heart towards Yahweh (1Sam7:3)
-Man
must give glory to His name (1Kg8:35)
-Recognize
Him as sovereign Lord (Am5:15)
-He
must hate evil and do good (Is1: 17)
-He
must improve his own ways and actions (Jer7:3)
-Separate
himself from his sins and keep the commandments (Ex18:27)
-Make
unto himself a new heart (Ez18:31)
-cleanse
his heart of wickedness Jer 4: 14
-Cleanse
and purify himself (Is 1:16)
B. In the New Testament
1. Its presence in the Gospels
If we look for the technical definition
of sin in the Gospel, we will not find it: but the essence of sin is there. It
is because of sin the Christ came, was born, taught and died on the Cross
Before Jesus was born, an angel of God
had told Joseph of Nazareth that Mary’s son was going to be called ‘Jesus’ that
is Savior for He shall save people from their sins (Mt1:22)
And John the Baptist will go before Him
“to give knowledge of salvation to His people unto the remission of sins”
(Lk1:78). The main theme of the Precursor’s preaching is baptism and penance
unto the remission of sins (Mk1:4; Lk3:3)
Penance and amendment are also the
initial themes of Christ’s own teaching (Mt4:17). Jesus began His teaching with
the message “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”
The presence of sin is manifested by
Jesus’ attitude on many occasion e.g. , the Pharisees could never forgive Him
in His familiarity with the publicans and sinners. He ate at table with them.
This behavior of Jesus scandalized the Pharisees. The sinners were of the worst
type: thieves, assassins: and prostitutes. Jesus is never tired of affirming
that He came specially for sinners, for it the “sick who need a physician”
(Mt9:12; Mk2:17; Lk5:32)
The greatest polemic between Jesus and
Pharisees was because Christ claimed divine power to remit sins (Mt9:2-7)
Christ blood was to be shed for the
remission of sins (Mt26:27). After His triumphal return to the Father, the
forgiveness of sins was to be preached to all nations (Lk24: 44-48)
The tragedy at Gethsemane, prelude to the
Passion, did more than any interminable discourse to explain to man what it is
to offend God and what it caused to atone for it. To understand this mystery
fully (inward agony of which the sweat of the blood is symptom, it is necessary
to understand what sin is. The weight of sin which Christ took upon Himself
makes His agony infinitely cruel. The agony of Jesus remains an enigma as long
as Christians fail to realize the literally tragic character of sin
2. The nature of sin in the NT.
Sin comes from the heart. One of the most
characteristic aspects of the moral teaching of the Gospels is the insistence
on the interior disposition of man in regard to good and evil. Jewish morals in
the time of Jesus spoke of inner rectitude. “Blessed are the pure of heart”.
The heart for the Jews was the center of the entire psychological and moral
life of man. Jesus gives several examples of what it means to be pure of heart or to have rectitude of intention (Mt 5:20;
Mk7: 13; Lk11-32)
Sin is betrayal of love. This is
wonderfully explained in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk15:1132). From the
very beginnings, the striking thing in this parable is the insolence of the
younger one. He claims the portion of the temporal goods due to him. This
attachment to the material things, to the finite goods, includes a turning away
from the father.
Not many days after, perhaps just long
enough to find a buyer, he gathered all his belongings and went abroad to a far
away country. (This far away country in Hebrew is the land beyond the sea, thus
opening a tremendous abyss between the father and the son).
In this far away country, he wasted his
wealth and everything his father had given him. The Prodigal son made no effort
to his own personal tune or to develop his potentialities. “He went far away”
in order to live independently and to escape advice and parental control; at
home everything was regulated by his father.
When he had squandered the last centavo,
he could no longer count on his friends…in this exile, instead of being a big
man, he was compelled to look for a menial job to feed the swine; pigs are the
most unclean animals. This connotes utter human degradation.
This is precisely what sin is: “a
betrayal of father’s love and protection”, an abuse of gifts, abandoning home,
squandering of one’s possessions and the loss of dignity: humiliation, misery,
hunger, isolation and separation from God, an existence worse than death
itself. The prodigal son attached to the material things and the love of them
turned him away from the father (God)
In the parable, there is only one way
out: to return to oneself, to repent, to come home to the father…, “How many
servants in my father’s home have more food than they want, and here I am dying
with hunger”. So, the prodigal son determined to leave the place and return to
the Father. But first, he acknowledged his sinful condition: “Father, I have
sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserved to be called your
son; treat me as one of your servants”.
God’s mercy. Normally,
one could expected a painful scene, a thorny encounter between the guilty man
and his justly angered father…bitter reproaches, hurting word…or a reconciliation
which would have left the prodigal son permanently in a humiliating and
embarrassing position…But while “he was still a long way off, his father saw
him, was moved with pity, ran to the boy, clasped him in his arms and kissed
him tenderly”. This is the way God portrays Himself with sinners. He is ready
to forget and to forgive repentant sinners
Sin in the Theology of St. Paul.
- Opposition between the old and the new Adam (Eph11:10,23)
- By one man sin entered into the world (Rom5:12)
- By sin death (Rom 6:13)
- All have sinned in Adam (Rom5:16-21)
- Victory of sin over the flesh (2Cor1:18)
- Christ has conquered sin (Rom5:15)
Sin in St. John
- Sin is darkness (the refusal of the commandment of love is to live in darkness ) and death (sin is death; redemption is life)
- Sin is an obstacle to salvation (sin is the refusal to love; it is unbelief)
- Christ is the Savior who came to take away the sin of the world.
St. Augustine on Sin
- Sin is a “disordered love”; it is the corruption of the souls
- Ontologically-a rupture of love
- psychologically-the anguish of man
- Theologically –disordered love
Vatican II on Sin
- Of the 16 documents of the Vat II, twelve of them at least mention sin, notable among which are Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium
- Sin in the Church: Sin is not merely a personal offense against God; it also possesses a communitarian dimension (LG 11). The sinner remains in the church. But he is on the way to damnation (LG14), by the sacrament of Penance the sinner is reconciled to God (PO)
- Sin in man: the dignity of man and the indignity of sin (GS 13); sin debases man and impeded him to attain his own fullness (GS 13b), in favor of the social dimension of justice and charity; it speaks against individualistic ethics (GS 30). One of the great errors of our times is the divorce of faith and daily life (GS 43)
Sin in Tradition
In the fourth century, fathers spoke of
the great sins for which public penance was necessary; for light sins only
private penance would do. St. Augustine spoke of sins that do not make man
unjust nor keep him from attaining heavenly happiness.
St. Jerome and all the other fathers
followed this tradition that there are some sins (venial) which need not to be
submitted to the “power of the keys” but can be forgiven by the work of charity
and prayer. Other sins deserve damnation (mortal) unless submitted to the “power of the keys”
St. Thomas and all theologians also spoke
of grave and venial sins (S.T. I-II, 70,87,5)
The Council of Trent defined as the dogma
of faith that men without special privilege can not avoid all venial sins
during their life. This privilege the Church believes was accorded only to the
Blessed V. Mary. This Council explained venial sins as ‘light’, one doesn’t
cease to be just (Dz 833, 804)
The Theology of Sin
The theology of St Thomas is still
considered as the basis for a Catholic theology of sin (cf. S.T,81,1-6).
Article one gives the difference of vice and virtue; article two explains how
virtue is “secundum naturam hominis” and vice as “contra naturam malus” (Humanus
because it is a voluntary act and malus it is because without due order)
The definition of sin is analogous,
in the sense that it applies to the grave sin, that is, sin which is committed
over grave matter, with the advertence of the intellect and with the perfect
consent of the will. The Magisterium teaches the essential difference of mortal
and venial sins (S.T I-II, 72, 1-9)
The consequences of sin:
1.
metaphysically,
the diminution or the breaking of the
order of man and its nature
2.
theologically, a
disunity between the body and the soul
3.
morally, sin is
imputable to man’s free choice; it causes unhappiness because of the absence of
God in man, since there is that urge to attain the Ultimate end; a rupture in
sin causes anguish, slavery passion and
spiritual death
4.
psychologically,
it is rooted in ignorance concupiscence and desolation in the absence of God.
Two elements of Sin
a.
aversion a Deo
(against the love of God or any established order of the law)
b.
conversio ad
creaturas
Kinds of Sin
1.
By reason of
cause:
a.
Original sin:
inherited from our first parents; perfectly voluntary
b.
Personal sin:
totally voluntary
2.
By reason of the
effect
a.
Mortal: three
conditions are: 1) grievous matter, 2) full knowledge, 3) full consent. It is
mortal because it causes death (a total break from God and man relationship)
b.
Venial: only a
turning away from God (as distinguished from total aversion); they weaken our
resistance to sin and to induce us to commit bigger sins.
3.
By reason of the
mode of action:
a.
commission, i.e.,
by the performance of the act
b.
omission, i.e.,
the non-performance of the act
Distinction of Sins
1.
Species-moral
-theology
2.
Vices-as opposed to the difference virtues
3.
Number: there are as many sins as there are many mortal objects
Comparisons of Sins
Spiritual sins are of greater guilt than
carnal sins
1.
On the part of
the subject
a.
Spiritual sins
belong to the spirit
b.
Carnal sins are
consummated in the carnal pleasure of the appetite (spiritual sins: turning
away from; carnal sins: turning to)
2.
Person against
whom the sin is committed:
a.
Spiritual sin-
God and neighbors
b.
Carnal sin-
sinner’s own body
3.
Motives: stronger
impulse; less grievous sin
a.
spiritual sin-
less impulse
b.
carnal sin-
stronger impulse.
Subject of Sins
The will is immediately and generally the
only seat and subject of sin. The will is power which is the principle of the
act. Now, since it is proper to moral acts that they be voluntary and since the
seat of voluntariness is the will, then, the seat of or principle of good acts
and evil acts-sins –is the will.
Causes of Sins
Sin has its roots in the finitude of
human freedom. Sin is a deed done by freewill; and the will subject to
temptations from without and from within, we call the causes of sins. Thus, the
causes of sins are generally classified as:
a.
internal cause:
ignorance, passion and malice
b.
external cause:
man, devil
A.
Temptations from without (External)
1. The Devil.
The
devil is the principle of this world (Jn14:30), and Paul even calls him the
‘god of this world’ (2Cor4:4). He was a murderer from the beginning and he has
nothing to do with truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks according to his own nature, for he is liar and the father of lies
(Jn8:44). In the NT, the devil is described as follows
a. temper (Mt4:3) tries to catch man by temptation
and seduction (2Tim 2:26)
b. he appears as the angel of light (2Cor
11:15), blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light
of the Gospel or the glory of Christ (2Cor 4:4)
According to the witness of the S.
Scripture, then, the devil is a solid reality, and even though we must not see
him in every temptation especially not behind every trouble we may have, yet,
every temptation endangers our salvation and connected with him in some way,
for the world is his satellite. Through it, he approaches us
2. The world (Man).
“The
world” which has Satan for its good consists of those men who hate the light of
truth (Jn3: 19) because their works are evil (Jn 7:7). Paul describes it,
therefore, as the ‘evil world’ (Gal 1: 4); as the ‘dark world’ (Eph 2:2),
children of the world and children of the light, (Lk 16:30), spirit of this
world and spirit of God (2Cor 2: 12); the wisdom of this world and divine world
(1Cor 1: 20; 2, 6:3, 19; Col 2:8) . See also (Rom 12:2; Jn2:15 and 1Cor 2:15ff)
The power of temptation which the NT in
this places describes as ‘the world’ we call somewhat more prosaically but with
the same content an occasion of sin’. We mean by this a given situation –
persons, things, circumstances of time and place – that involves a danger of
sinning by being an external occasion of temptations. We speak of a proximate
and remote occasion according to the greatness of the danger and of a necessary
and voluntary occasion according to whether one can escape from it.
We are bound in conscience to avoid a
proximate occasion of sin, and if it is a necessary occasion (through our
profession or employment or in any other way), we must take appropriate steps
to make the occasion a more remote one. The remote occasion bound up with our
daily life can not and need not be avoided.
B.
Temptations from within (see ignorance,
passion and malice)
The devil and the world can not force one
to sin. Where a man simply succumbs to outwards compulsion, having no choice
there is no sin; he merely undergoes what happens. Temptation from without is
really dangerous only through the evil concupiscence of the man it addresses.
What lures freedom is the inclination to evil in man himself, ‘the lust of the
flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life’ (1Jn2:16), which through
external enticement, as it were, conceives and brings forth (Jas 1:14ff). so
this inner receptivity really determines what will in fact constitute a
proximate occasion of sin for each individual.
Outward enticement and inner inclination
produce what is really properly called temptation; it is an enticement that
becomes conscious, an experience of conflict between the impulse of desire and
the warning of conscience. No temptation, however serious, is itself sin, but
it would be sin to go looking for temptation or not to go away from it.
EFFECT OF SIN
The good of human nature includes
three things:
- the constitution and the properties of human nature itself
- the inclination to virtue
- the original justice.
Now, sin does not diminish or destroy the
constitution of human nature, nor does sin take away the original justice (this
was taken away in the beginning by Adam’s sin). Therefore, sin only diminishes
the good of human nature inasmuch as this good is the inclination to virtue.
But sin can never destroy the entire good of human nature, although it may go
on diminishing man’s inclination to virtue.
Sin by it very nature incurs the debt of
due punishment. By sin, man loses grace and so leaves himself open to further
sins. When sin destroys charity by turning man entirely away from God, it
causes a complete disruption of the order in man’s true good. This incurs a
heavy punishment. But not all sins are completely destructive of charity. A
partial turning away from God is called venial sin; it deserves temporal
punishment.
So, some sins are mortal and some are
venial. Mortal sins are utterly destroy the order which directs the soul by
reason and God’s law; it inflicts on the soul and damage is irreparable. Venial
sin is a disorder but not a destructive one (See ST, Ia-IIae, q85)
Conversion is and ecclesiastical and
sacramental thing. It is antecedently related to the Church because the kingdom
of God on earth finds its concrete realization in the Church of Christ. For the
baptized, sin does not only insult God but always weakens and damages the
community as well. However personally responsible the Christian be he is still
no individualist, but body and soul a member of a whole community.
Reconciliation with God therefore necessarily demands reconciliation with the
whole community as well.
Jesus expressly gives the Church
disciplinary power over believers who commit sin (Mt 18: 15-17). If a private
warning proves unavailing, the sinner is to be reported to the Church and if he
does not listen to this supreme court, he is to be treated as ‘the heathen and
the tax collectors’, that is according to Jewish procedure, to be
‘excommunicated’ (Jn9:22). To fortify the Church’s authority, he then speaks
this mighty words to the Apostles: “Truly I say to you whatever you bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven” (Mt18:18). So, when the Apostles ‘bind’ they shout out the guilty
not only the from the community of the Church on earth, but also from the
kingdom of heaven. ‘Loosening’ on the other hand, indirectly means forgiving of
sins, because it the sentence has been cancelled, or not pronounced, sin has no
further consequences in man. The Apostolic power of forgiving sins is expressly
confirmed by the risen Lord when passes his mission on the Apostles (Jn20-21:3)
Conversion then, is a work of God and a
work of man. As it is impossible for man in mortal sin to free himself from the
prison of his guilt towards God, he is entirely dependent for his justification
on God’s grace alone. It is a gift of God who takes pity on him, a gift that is
open to everyone. But it is a gift to man’s free will/personality and can be
imparted to the individual only if he accepts it; it he lays hold on it in
obedience, giving consent to what is demanded of him by the call to conversion.
Conversion, then, is a deed of God and a
deed of man. Not as though God did one part and man another; rather God
produces all the work and does all the work. The difference lies is this – that
God works as God and man as a creature, indeed as a sinful creature. God
readies the heart of the sinner (prepare it ) by giving some sort of
receptivity and s taste of grace to a man having such receptivity. On man’s
part, his personal acts which are demanded of him are sorrow, confession and
satisfaction. They are the basis requirements for any true conversion. They
reach fulfillment in the sacrament of penance.
Conversion, therefore, is first of all a
turning away from the sinful state – of false wisdom, of pride and all
inordinate attachment to the things of this world – and, then, a turning to
God, the source of order, harmony and life itself. The movements are done both
by God and man- God preparing the heart of the sinner, moving it somehow listen
to the constant call of conversion, and readying it to make amendments of life;
and man, on his part, respond to God’s call of conversion and does his acts of
sorrow for his sins and of approaching for the sacrament of penance. With his
sincere sorrow for his sins after he already approached the sacrament, then he
makes reparation for his sins and lives constantly with God grace in virtues.
II. VIRTUES
A.
DEFINITION
St Thomas defines it as a good operative
habit. The genus of virtue is expressed by the work “operative habit”; the
specific difference is “good” for the true ordination of virtue consists in its
ordination to the good of man’s nature. Virtue in its proper sense is a morally
good operative habit. As Aristotle said almost the same thing in defining
virtue as that which makes the possessor good, and what he does good as well.
By virtue, not only are man’s actions rendered good, but man too, is
constituted morally good in his being
St Augustine defines virtue as good
quality of the mind by which one lives rightly, which no one can make bad use
of, and which God accomplishes in us, without us.
a.
quality: is the
most genus of virtues
b.
good: is the
specific difference; the formal cause
c.
the mind: is the
subject of virtue in general; the material cause
d.
by which one
lives rightly – virtue ordains us to right living, whose end is operation. It
does not only make the action good but also operation.
e.
No one uses badly
– virtue can never be used for evil
f.
Which God
accomplishes in us, without us- this indicates the efficient cause of infused
virtue. It is a God’s given gift. Infused virtue is given to us but we have to
respond to it when the age of reason is attained.
B.
Division of virtues (I-II, q57-62)
1.
Intellectual
virtues
2.
Moral virtues
3.
Cardinal virtues
4.
Theological
virtues
Intellectual
virtues are ordained to the speculation and
contemplation of truth
Intellectual virtues: a/ speculative:
understanding
Science
And
wisdom
b/ practical : Art and prudent.
Understanding is the habit of the
first principles
Synderesis is the one that will
give general ends to all principles
Science is to know a thing by its
proper cause
Wisdom is to know s thing by its
ultimate cause
Prudent- recta ratio agibilium
Art-
recta ratio factibilium
Prudent is a unique kind of virtue for it
is numbered among the moral virtues of the will as well as among the
intellectual virtues. Formally, as regards its essence, knowledge, prudent is
in practical intellect as its subject and is, therefore, an intellectual
virtue; but materially, ,as regards its content or matter, good human actions,
prudent is a moral virtue.
Moral
virtues are habits by which man’s appetites
are well disposed to be brought in conformity with reason, with the norm of
determining the good, midway between excess and defect
The moral virtues are necessary
for man’s proper activity because the rational and sensitive appetites of man
are not subject entirely to reason. Because these faculties are properly
operative in their own right; they can rise up control of reason. Hence,
various appetites of man must be disposed to obey reason by discipline of moral
virtues. We speak here of acquired virtues, natural moral virtues, to
distinguish them from the infused moral virtues, the supernatural counterpart
of the natural virtues
Cardinal
virtues
(from
the Latin word for “hinge”, that upon which the door hangs) are those principle
virtues upon which man’s moral life pivots, like the door upon its hinge. They
are
- prudent
- justice
- temperance
- fortitude
Theological
virtues
are
operative habits by which we are ordered tom God, our supernatural end. They
are called theological virtues because:
a.
both their
material and formal objective motive is God
b.
they are infused
in us by God
c.
their existence
is known only because of God’s
revelation to us.
Theological
and infused virtues (their
difference)
Theological
virtues are always related to God while infused virtues are any virtues given
by God which may or may not ordain us to God
Theological
and moral virtues
Theological
virtues treat of God as end; moral virtues deal with right disposition to the
end (either natural or supernatural with regards to natural or supernatural
moral virtues respectively) and also
with means (natural or supernatural) to the end.
Theological
virtues are FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY.
Causes of virtues:
- Nature. Nature has implanted in a man a foundation for virtue- namely a natural inclination to the good of reason, and certain naturally known principles both of knowledge and of action, the “nurseries of virtues” in St Thomas’ phrase. Individual men, moreover, because of bodily dispositions (temperaments) may be disposed more to the development of one virtue than another. But these are not the beginnings of virtue. No natural virtue, intellectual or moral, is found in its full state of development as an intimate endowment of nature.
- Human actions: those actions which are directed to man’s natural good as determined by the rule of reason are caused by human actions, as any natural operative habit is. Those virtues, however, which are directed to man’s supernatural good, that which is determined by the rule of divine reason, can be caused by God alone, since the goal is higher than the powers of nature.
- Divine actions. That God can infuse in to the powers of the soul the natural virtues attainable by repeated effort is beyond doubt. Certainly, he can accomplish what he ordinarily produces through the secondary causes, and he alone is the only possible cause of the theological virtues, by which we are directly ordered to our supernatural end, God as He is in Himself.
Means
of virtues (Golden mean)
The mean of virtue is not on the part of
subject, as though man could not exercise virtue more than half-heartedly. The
mean of virtue is on the part of object. This means that virtues has for its
object a middle way in its proper matter between excess and defect, precisely
to the degree that right reason dictates
Kinds
of mean
- Medium Rationis is the subjective for it is reason which judges which is the middle course
- Medium Rei is the subjective mean for it does not vary in different circumstances and in different persons. It is the mean in reality
For
intellectual virtues, the mean is
MEDIUM REI because truth is invariable; it is what it is in reality. Truth is
truth to all persons and in every circumstance. It is the question of when and
where to say the truth
Moral
virtues, on the other hand, use the mean of reason because moral virtues
principally reside in the will.
Justice uses MEDIUM REI for justice
is concerned with what is due to others. It is determined by external object
which is invariable
Fortitude and Temperance use the
mean of reason for they are concerned with passions; internal passions and
appetites of man are variable. They are not the same at all times and in all
person and at all places.
Reason
determines what is best to be done here and now.
Prudent is that which gives the
golden mean
Theological
virtues
Because of God Himself who is beyond any
created measure is their object, there is no mean for theological virtues of
faith, hope, charity. It is not possible to believe too much; to hope too much,
and to love too much; their only measure is to believe, to hope and to love
without measure
Any
excess or defect which might seem to be attached to theological virtues
actually comes from the circumstances or state of the subject of these virtues
Faith: to be over-confident, going to
superstition or to the defect of heresy
Hope: to be presumptuous or to despair
But this excess is not really an excess
in the virtue itself\, because it does not pertain to the proper acts or proper matter of any of
the theological virtues; but it stems from the extrinsic circumstances or state
of subject in which virtue resides.
