Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
Forty Second Distinction
Single Question. Whether there is a Distinction of Sins into Capital Sins
1. Concerning the forty second distinction a question can be raised about the distinction of the seven capital sins55 - but the solution of this questiona is plain from d.6 n.73 above, where the question about the sin of the angel was raised. For a will conjoined to a sensitive appetite is of a nature to tend toward things delightful to the sensitive appetite, and most to things most delightful and desirable to a more excelling appetite -as the conjoined intellect too is of a nature to understand sensibles, and those first that are sensible first.
a. a[Interpolation] Concerning this forty second distinction, where the Master quotes the statement of Jerome [On Ezekiel 13.43] in which is indicated that sin consists in thought, speech, and deed, five questions are raised: first whether there can be sin in thought; second whether in speech; third whether in deed; fourth whether Jerome’s division of sins is sufficient; fifth can be asked a question about the division of the seven capital sins. About the first the argument is... [here the text from Willliam of Alnwick’s Additiones Magnae d.42 qq.1-4 follows]. About the fifth, namely the distinction of the capital sins, one should know that the solution of it.
2. Our will, then, because of its conjoining with the sensitive appetite, is of a nature to tend to things delightful to such appetite, and the capital sins that are carnal [sc. lust and gluttony] can be assigned according to these delightful things; but the capital sins that are spiritual [sc. the other five] can be assigned according to what is delightful to the will in itself, not to the will through the sensitive appetite. But the sin of greed seems only to be about the useful desirable, which is ordered to what is desirable in itself in either of these stated ways, namely ordered to pleasure or to honor [sc. greed could be either carnal or spiritual].
3. However, according to the formal idea of sins, this sevenfold division is not sufficient; rather the per se distinction of sins is to be taken either from lacking or deviating from the precepts (just as there are ten first precepts so there are ten capital sins), or from opposition to the virtues - and there was discussion of this in the aforementioned d.6 n.73.