OF THE COMPARISON OF ONE SIN WITH ANOTHER (10 articles)
We must now consider the comparison of one sin with another: under which head there are ten points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all sins and vices are connected with one another?
(2) Whether all are equal?
(3) Whether the gravity of sin depends on its object?
(4) Whether it depends on the excellence of the virtue to which it is opposed?
(5) Whether carnal sins are more grievous than spiritual sins?
(6) Whether the gravity of sins depends on their causes?
(7) Whether it depends on their circumstances?
(8) Whether it depends on how much harm ensues?
(9) Whether on the position of the person sinned against?
(10) Whether sin is aggravated by reason of the excellence of the person sinning?
Whether all sins are connected with one another?
Some vices are contrary to one another, as Aristotle states.
But contraries cannot be together in the same subject.
Therefore it is impossible for all sins and vices to be connected with one another.
The intention of the man who acts according to virtue in pursuance of his reason, is different from the intention of the sinner in straying from the path of reason.
For the intention of every man acting according to virtue is to follow the rule of reason, wherefore the intention of all the virtues is directed to the same end, so that all the virtues are connected together in the right reason of things to be done, viz. prudence.
But the intention of the sinner is not directed to the point of straying from the path of reason; rather is it directed to tend to some appetible good whence it derives its species.
Now these goods, to which the sinner’s intention is directed when departing from reason, are of various kinds, having no mutual connection; in fact they are sometimes contrary to one another.
Since, therefore, vices and sins take their species from that to which they turn, it is evident that, in respect of that which completes a sin’s species, sins are not connected with one another.
For sin does not consist in passing from the many to the one, as is the case with virtues, which are connected, but rather in forsaking the one for the many.
Whether all sins are equal?
Our Lord said to Pilate (Jn. 19:11): “He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin,” and yet it is evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin.
Therefore one sin is greater than another.
The opinion of the Stoics, which Cicero adopts in the book on Paradoxes, 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.
So far as can be gathered from the words of Cicero the Stoics arrived at their conclusion through looking at sin on the side of the privation only, in so far, to wit, as it is a departure from reason; wherefore considering simply that no privation admits of more or less, they held that all sins are equal.
Yet, if we consider the matter carefully, we shall see that there are two kinds of privation.
For there is a simple and pure privation, which consists, so to speak, in “being” corrupted; thus death is privation of life, and darkness is privation of light.
Such like privations do not admit of more or less, because nothing remains of the opposite habit; hence a man is not less dead on the first day after his death, or on the third or fourth days, than after a year, when his corpse is already dissolved; and, in like manner, a house is no darker if the light be covered with several shades, than if it were covered by a single shade shutting out all the light.
There is, however, another privation which is not simple, but retains something of the opposite habit; it consists in “becoming” corrupted rather than in “being” corrupted, like sickness which is a privation of the due commensuration of the humors, yet so that something remains of that commensuration, else the animal would cease to live: and the same applies to deformity and the like.
Such privations admit of more or less on the part of what remains or the contrary habit.
For it matters much in sickness or deformity, whether one departs more or less from the due commensuration of humors or members.
The same applies 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.
For the substance of the act, or the affection of the agent could not remain, unless something remained of the order of reason.
Therefore it matters much to the gravity of a sin whether one departs more or less from the rectitude of reason: and accordingly we must say that sins are not all equal.
Whether the gravity of sins varies according to their objects?
Sins take their species from their objects.
But some sins are graver than others in respect of their species, as murder is graver than theft.
Therefore the gravity of sins varies according to their objects.
As is clear from what has been said, the gravity of sins varies in the same way as one sickness is graver than another: for just as the good of health consists in a certain commensuration of the humors, in keeping with an animal’s nature, so the good of virtue consists in a certain commensuration of the human act in accord with the rule of reason.
Now it is evident that the higher the principle the disorder of which causes the disorder in the humors, the graver is the sickness: thus a sickness which comes on the human body from the heart, which is the principle of life, or from some neighboring part, is more dangerous.
Wherefore a sin must needs be so much the graver, as the disorder occurs in a principle which is higher in the order of reason.
Now in matters of action the reason directs all things in view of the end: wherefore the higher the end which attaches to sins in human acts, the graver the sin. Now the object of an act is its end; and consequently the difference of gravity in sins depends on their objects.
Thus it is clear that external things are directed to man as their end, while man is further directed to GOD as his end.
Wherefore a sin which is about the very substance of man, e.g. murder, is graver than a sin which is about external things, e.g. theft; and graver still is a sin committed directly against GOD, e.g. unbelief, blasphemy, and the like: and in each of these grades of sin, one sin will be graver than another according as it is about a higher or lower principle.
And forasmuch as sins take their species from their objects, the difference of gravity which is derived from the objects is first and foremost, as resulting from the species.
Whether the gravity of sins depends on the excellence of the virtues to which they are opposed?
Aristotle says that the “worst is opposed to the best.”
Now in morals the best is the greatest virtue; and the worst is the most grievous sin.
Therefore the most grievous sin is opposed to the greatest virtue.
A sin is opposed to a virtue in two ways: first, principally and directly; that sin, to with, which is about the same object: because contraries are about the same thing.
In this way, the more grievous sin must needs be opposed to the greater virtue: because, just as the degrees of gravity in a sin depend on the object, so also does the greatness of a virtue, since both sin and virtue take their species from the object.
Wherefore the greatest sin must needs be directly opposed to the greatest virtue, as being furthest removed from it in the same genus.
Secondly, the opposition of virtue to sin may be considered in respect of a certain extension of the virtue in checking sin.
For the greater a virtue is, the further it removes man from the contrary sin, so that it withdraws man not only from that sin, but also from whatever leads to it.
And thus it is evident that the greater a virtue is, the more it withdraws man also from less grievous sins: even as the more perfect health is, the more does it ward off even minor ailments.
And in this way the less grievous sin is opposed to the greater virtue, on the part of the latter’s effect.
Saint Gregory says that carnal sins are of less guilt, but of more shame than spiritual sins.
Spiritual sins are of greater guilt than carnal sins: yet this does not mean that each spiritual sin is of greater guilt than each carnal sin; but that, considering the sole difference between spiritual and carnal, spiritual sins are more grievous than carnal sins, other things being equal.
Three reasons may be assigned for this.
The first is on the part of the subject: because spiritual sins belong to the spirit, to which it is proper to turn to GOD, and to turn away from Him; whereas carnal sins are consummated in the carnal pleasure of the appetite, to which it chiefly belongs to turn to goods of the body; so that carnal sin, as such, denotes more a “turning to” something, and for that reason, implies a closer cleaving; whereas spiritual sin denotes more a “turning from” something, whence the notion of guilt arises; and for this reason it involves greater guilt.
A second reason may be taken on the part of the person against whom sin is committed: because carnal sin, as such, is against the sinner’s own body, which he ought to love less, in the order of charity, than GOD and his neighbor, against whom he commits spiritual sins, and consequently spiritual sins, as such, are of greater guilt.
A third reason may be taken from the motive, since the stronger the impulse to sin, the less grievous the sin, as we shall state further on. Now carnal sins have a stronger impulse, viz. our innate concupiscence of the flesh.
Therefore spiritual sins, as such, are of greater guilt.
* * *
For the greater a virtue is, the further it removes man from the contrary sin, so that it withdraws man not only from that sin, but also from whatever leads to it.
* * *
Whether the gravity of a sin depends on its cause?
If the cause be increased, the effect is increased.
Therefore the greater the cause of sin, the more grievous the sin.
In the genus of sin, as in every other genus, two causes may be observed.
The first is the direct and proper cause of sin, and is the will to sin: for it is compared to the sinful act, as a tree to its fruit, as a gloss observes on Mat. 7:18, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit”: and the greater this cause is, the more grievous will the sin be, since the greater the will to sin, the more grievously does man sin.
The other causes of sin are extrinsic and remote, as it were, being those whereby the will is inclined to sin.
Among these causes we must make a distinction; for some of them induce the will to sin in accord with the very nature of the will: such is the end, which is the proper object of the will; and by a such like cause sin is made more grievous, because a man sins more grievously if his will is induced to sin by the intention of a more evil end.
Other causes incline the will to sin, against the nature and order of the will, whose natural inclination is to be moved freely of itself in accord with the judgment of reason.
Wherefore those causes which weaken the judgment of reason (e.g. ignorance), or which weaken the free movement of the will, (e.g. weakness, violence, fear, or the like), diminish the gravity of sin, even as they diminish its voluntariness; and so much so, that if the act be altogether involuntary, it is no longer sinful.
Whether a circumstance aggravates a sin?
Ignorance of a circumstance diminishes sin: for he who sins through ignorance of a circumstance, deserves to be forgiven.
Now this would not be the case unless a circumstance aggravated a sin.
Therefore a circumstance makes a sin more grievous.
As Aristotle says in speaking of habits of virtue, “it is natural for a thing to be increased by that which causes it.”
Now it is evident that a sin is caused by a defect in some circumstance: because the fact that a man departs from the order of reason is due to his not observing the due circumstances in his action.
Wherefore it is evident that it is natural for a sin to be aggravated by reason of its circumstances.
This happens in three ways.
First, in so far as a circumstance draws a sin from one kind to another: thus fornication is the intercourse of a man with one who is not his wife: but if to this be added the circumstance that the latter is the wife of another, the sin is drawn to another kind of sin, viz. injustice, in so far as he usurps another’s property; and in this respect adultery is a more grievous sin than fornication.
Secondly, a circumstance aggravates a sin, not by drawing it into another genus, but only by multiplying the ratio of sin: thus if a wasteful man gives both when he ought not, and to whom he ought not to give, he commits the same kind of sin in more ways than if he were to merely to give to whom he ought not, and for that very reason his sin is more grievous; even as that sickness is the graver which affects more parts of the body.
Hence Cicero says that “in taking his father’s life a man commits many sins; for he outrages one who begot him, who fed him, who educated him, to whom he owes his lands, his house, his position in the republic.”
Thirdly, a circumstance aggravates a sin by adding to the deformity which the sin derives from another circumstance: thus, taking another’s property constitutes the sin of theft; but if to this be added the circumstance that much is taken of another’s property, the sin will be more grievous; although in itself, to take more or less has not the character of a good or of an evil act.
Whether sin is aggravated by reason of its causing more harm?
Saint Augustine says: “Since vice is contrary to nature, a vice is the more grievous according as it diminishes the integrity of nature.”
Now the diminution of the integrity of nature is a harm.
Therefore a sin is graver according as it does more harm.
Harm may bear a threefold relation to sin.
Because sometimes the harm resulting from a sin is foreseen and intended, as when a man does something with a mind to harm another, e.g. a murderer or a thief.
In this case the quantity of harm aggravates the sin directly, because then the harm is the direct object of the sin.
Sometimes the harm is foreseen, but not intended; for instance, when a man takes a short cut through a field, the result being that he knowingly injures the growing crops, although his intention is not to do this harm, but to commit fornication.
In this case again the quantity of the harm done aggravates the sin; indirectly, however, in so far, to wit, as it is owing to his will being strongly inclined to sin, that a man does not forbear from doing, to himself or to another, a harm which he would not wish simply.
Sometimes, however, the harm is neither foreseen nor intended: and then if this harm is connected with the sin accidentally, it does not aggravate the sin directly; but, on account of his neglecting to consider the harm that might ensue, a man is deemed punishable for the evil results of his action if it be unlawful.
If, on the other hand, the harm follow directly from the sinful act, although it be neither foreseen nor intended, it aggravates the sin directly, because whatever is directly consequent to a sin, belongs, in a manner, to the very species of that sin: for instance, if a man is a notorious fornicator, the result is that many are scandalized; and although such was not his intention, nor was it perhaps foreseen by him, yet it aggravates his sin directly.
But this does not seem to apply to penal harm, which the sinner himself incurs.
Such like harm, if accidentally connected with the sinful act, and if neither foreseen nor intended, does not aggravate a sin, nor does it correspond with the gravity of the sin: for instance, if a man in running to slay, slips and hurts his foot.
If, on the other hand, this harm is directly consequent to the sinful act, although perhaps it be neither foreseen nor intended, then greater harm does not make greater sin, but, on the contrary, a graver sin calls for the infliction of a greater harm.
Thus, an unbeliever who has heard nothing about the pains of hell, would suffer greater pain in hell for a sin of murder than for a sin of theft: but his sin is not aggravated on account of his neither intending nor foreseeing this, as it would be in the case of a believer, who, seemingly, sins more grievously in the very fact that he despises a greater punishment, that he may satisfy his desire to sin; but the gravity of this harm is caused by the sole gravity of sin.
Whether a sin is aggravated by reason of the condition of the person against whom it is committed?
Holy Writ censures especially those sins that are committed against the servants of GOD.
Thus it is written (3 Kings 19:14): “They have destroyed Thy altars, they have slain Thy prophets with the sword.”
Moreover much blame is attached to the sin committed by a man against those who are akin to him, according to Micah 7:6: “the son dishonoreth the father, and the daughter riseth up against her mother.”
Furthermore sins committed against persons of rank are expressly condemned: thus it is written (Job 34:18): “Who saith to the king: ‘Thou art an apostate’; who calleth rulers ungodly.”
Therefore the condition of the person sinned against aggravates the sin.
The person sinned against is, in a manner, the object of the sin.
The primary gravity of a sin is derived from its object; so that a sin is deemed to be so much the more grave, as its object is a more principal end.
But the principal ends of human acts are GOD, man himself, and his neighbor: for whatever we do, it is on account of one of these that we do it; although one of them is subordinate to the other.
Therefore the greater or lesser gravity of a sin, in respect of the person sinned against, may be considered on the part of these three.
First, on the part of GOD, to Whom man is the more closely united, as he is more virtuous or more sacred to GOD: so that an injury inflicted on such a person redounds on to GOD according to Zech. 2:8: “He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of My eye.”
Wherefore a sin is the more grievous, according as it is committed against a person more closely united to GOD by reason of personal sanctity, or official station.
On the part of man himself, it is evident that he sins all the more grievously, according as the person against whom he sins, is more united to him, either through natural affinity or kindness received or any other bond; because he seems to sin against himself rather than the other, and, for this very reason, sins all the more grievously, according to Ecclus. 14:5: “He that is evil to himself, to whom will he be good?”
On the part of his neighbor, a man sins the more grievously, according as his sin affects more persons: so that a sin committed against a public personage, e.g. a sovereign prince who stands in the place of the whole people, is more grievous than a sin committed against a private person; hence it is expressly prohibited (Ex. 22:28): “The prince of thy people thou shalt not curse.”
In like manner it would seem that an injury done to a person of prominence, is all the more grave, on account of the scandal and the disturbance it would cause among many people.
* * *
Therefore the condition of the person sinned against aggravates the sin.
* * *
Whether the excellence of the person sinning aggravates the sin?
Isidore says: “A sin is deemed so much the more grievous as the sinner is held to be a more excellent person.”
I answer that, Sin is twofold.
There is a sin which takes us unawares on account of the weakness of human nature: and such like sins are less imputable to one who is more virtuous, because he is less negligent in checking those sins, which nevertheless human weakness does not allow us to escape altogether.
But there are other sins which proceed from deliberation: and these sins are all the more imputed to man according as he is more excellent.
Four reasons may be assigned for this.
First, because a more excellent person, e.g. one who excels in knowledge and virtue, can more easily resist sin; hence Our Lord said (Lk. 12:47) that the “servant who knew the will of his lord . . . and did it not . . . shall be beaten with many stripes.”
Secondly, on account of ingratitude, because every good in which a man excels, is a gift of GOD, to Whom man is ungrateful when he sins: and in this respect any excellence, even in temporal goods, aggravates a sin, according to Wis. 6:7: “The mighty shall be mightily tormented.”
Thirdly, on account of the sinful act being specially inconsistent with the excellence of the person sinning: for instance, if a prince were to violate justice, whereas he is set up as the guardian of justice, or if a priest were to be a fornicator, whereas he has taken the vow of chastity.
Fourthly, on account of the example or scandal; because, as Saint Gregory says: “Sin becomes much more scandalous, when the sinner is honored for his position”: and the sins of the great are much more notorious and men are wont to bear them with more indignation.
* * *
But there are other sins which proceed from deliberation: and these sins are all the more imputed to man according as he is more excellent.
* * *
Below: Saint Thomas Aquinas church, St Lucia, Queensland AUS (photo by Chris Olszewski via CC 4.0 license) 
