Aquinas Article 2 Summary

531 Words2 Pages

In Question 73, Article 2, Aquinas discusses two types of privation: simple/pure and not simple, but retains something of the opposite habit. These distinctions are where Aquinas begins to look at how all sins are not equal. In the opening of his response in Article 2, he looks at what the Stoics and Cicero believed: “was that all sins are equal: from which opinion arose the error of certain heretics, who not only hold all sins to be equal, but also maintain that all the pains of hell are equal”. Aquinas quickly shuts down this belief by introducing the types of privations because the Stoics looked at sins just based off the simple privation type. The simple privation type basically states that privation is looked at as “being” corrupted; so …show more content…

Through this type of privation, it is easy to see how the Stoics saw sins as all equal because there was nothing of the opposite. This is where Aquinas’ second type of privation explains how sins are not all equal. The second privation is not simple, but retains something of the opposite habit and has to do with “becoming” corrupted, rather than “being” corrupted. The example that was given is sickness and how it can relate to vices and sins: “because in them the privation of the due commensuration of reason is such as not to destroy the order of reason altogether; else evil, if total, destroys itself”. Based on the second privation, the gravity of the sin depends on whether one departs more or less from reason. This can be seen in Dante, based on the fact that there are different levels of Hell and how there are punishments that are worse than another. Depending on the gravity of the sin is where one would be placed in Hell, which lines up with Aquinas’ view of sins being compared with another and against the Stoics view. It would not seem just that a sin of lust be treated the same for a sin of heresy or simony, which voluntarily go against the will of

Open Document