American University.

American University Bulletin Catalog Issue: College of Arts and Sciences Announcements (Volume 1941-1942) online

. (page 22 of 26)
Online LibraryAmerican UniversityAmerican University Bulletin Catalog Issue: College of Arts and Sciences Announcements (Volume 1941-1942) → online text (page 22 of 26)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


(ii. 2, 3) : //* there shall come into your assemhly a man having
a golden ring, in fine apparel, . . . and you . . . shall say to
him: Sit thou here well, etc. Wherefore ambition does not
regard outward worship, except in so far as this is a kind of
honour.



QUESTION CXXXII.

OF VAINGLORY.

[In Five Articles.)

We must now consider vainglory: under which head there
are five points of inquiry: (i) Whether desire of glory is a
sin ? (2) Whether it is opposed to magnanimity ? (3) Whether
t is a mortal sin ? (4) Whether it is a capital vice ? (5) Of
its daughters.

First Article,
whether the desire of glory is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that the desire of glory is not a sin.
For no one sins in being likened to God : in fact we are com-
manded (Eph. V. i.): Be ye . . . followers of God, as most
dear children. Now by seeking glory man seems to imitate
God, Who seeks glory from men: wherefore it is written
(Isa. xliii. 6, 7) : Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters
from the ends of the earth. And every one that calleth on My
name, I have created him for My glory. Therefore the desire
for glory is not a sin.

Ohj. 2. Further, That which incites a man to do good is
apparently not a sin. Now the desire of glory incites men
to do good. For Tully says {De Tusc. Qucast. i.) that glory
inflames every man to strive his utmost : and in Holy Writ
glory is promised for good works, according to Rom. ii. 7 :
To them, indeed, who according to patience in good work . . .
glory and honour.* Therefore the desire for glory is not a sin.

* Vulg., — Who will vender to every man according to his works, to
them indeed who . . . seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal

life.

277



Q. 132. Art. i THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 278

Ohj. 3. Further, Tully says [De Inv. Rhet. ii.) that glory
is consistent good report about a person, together with praise :
and this comes to the same as what Augustine says {Contra
Maximin. iii.), viz. that glory is, as it were, clear knowledge
with praise. Now it is no sin to desire praiseworthy renown :
indeed, it seems itself to call for praise, according to
Ecclus. xli. 15, Take care of a good name, and Rom. xii. 17,
Providing good things not only in the sight of God, hut also in
the sight of all men. Therefore the desire of vainglory is
not a sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Civ. Dei v.): He is
better advised who acknowledges that even the love of praise
is sinful.

I answer that, Glory signifies a certain charity, wherefore
Augustine says (Tract. Ixxxii., c, cxiv. in Joan.) that to
be glorified is the same as to be clarified. Now clarity and
comeliness imply a certain display: wherefore the word
glory properly denotes the display of something as regards
its seeming comely in the sight of men, whether it be a
bodily or a spiritual good. Since, however, that which is
clear simply can be seen by many, and by those who are
far away, it follows that the word glory properly denotes
that somebody's good is known and approved by many,
according to the saying of Sallust {Catilin.):^ I must not
boast while I am addressing one man.

But if we take the word glory in a broader sense, it not
only consists in the knowledge of many, but also in the
knowledge of few, or of one, or of oneself alone, as when one
considers one's own good as being worthy of praise. Now
it is not a sin to know and approve one's own good: for it
is written (i Cor. ii. 12): Now we have received not the spirit
of this world, hut the Spirit that is of God, that we may know
the things that are given us from God. Likewise it is not a sin
to be willing to approve one's own good works: for it is
written (Matth. v. 16): Let your light shine before men.
Hence the desire for glory does not, of itself, denote a sin:
but the desire for empty or vain glory denotes a sin: for it
* The quotation is from Livy [Hist., Lib. XXII., C. 39).



279 OF VAINGLORY Q. 132. Art. i

is sinful to desire anything vain, according to Ps. iv. 3, Why
do you love vanity, and seek after lying ?

Now glory may be called vain in three ways. First, on
the part of the thing for which one seeks glory: as when a
man seeks glory for that which is unworthy of glory, for
instance when he seeks it for something frail and perishable:
secondly, on the part of him from whom he seeks glory,
for instance a man whose judgment is uncertain: thirdly,
on the part of the man himself who seeks glory, for that he
does not refer the desire of his own glory to a due end, such
as God's honour, or the spiritual welfare of his neighbour.

Reply Obj. i. As Augustine says on John xiii. 13, You call
Me Master and Lord ; and you say well {Tract. Iviii. in Joan.) :
Self-complacency is fraught with danger of one who has to
beware of pride. But He Who is above all, however much He
may praise Himself, does not uplift Himself. For knowledge
of God is our need, not His : nor does any man know Him
unless he be taught of Him Who knows. It is therefore
evident that God seeks glory, not for His own sake, but for
ours. In like manner a man may rightly seek his own
glory for the good of others, according to Matth. v. 16, That
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is
in heaven.

Reply Obj. 2. That which we receive from God is not vain
but true glory: it is this glory that is promised as a reward
for good works, and of which it is written (2 Cor. x. 17, 18) :
He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord, for not he who
commendeth himself is approved, but he whom God com-
mendeth. It is true that some are heartened to do works of
virtue, through desire for human glory, as also through the
desire for other earthly goods. Yet he is not truly virtuous
who does virtuous deeds for the sake of human glory, as
Augustine proves [De Civ. Dei v.).

Reply Obj. 3. It is requisite for man's perfection that he
should know himself; but not that he should be known by
others, wherefore it is not to be desired in itself. It may,
however, be desired as being useful for something, either
in order that God may be glorified by men, or that men may



0. 132- Art. 2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGiCA " 280

become better by reason of the good they know to be in
another man, or in order that man, knowing by the testi-
mony of others' praise the good which is in him, may himself
strive to persevere therein and to become better. In this
sense it is praiseworthy that a man should take care of his
good name, and that he should provide good things in the
sight of God and men : but not that he should take an empty
pleasure in human praise.

Second Article,
whether vainglory is opposed to magnanimity ?

We proceed thus to the Second Article : —

Objection i. It seems that vainglory is not opposed to
magnanimity. For, as stated above (Ai), vainglory consists
in glorying in things that are not, which pertains to false-
hood ; or in earthly and perishable things, which pertains to
covet ousness ; or in the testimony of men, whose judgment
is uncertain, which pertains to imprudence. Now these
vices are not contrary to magnanimity. Therefore vain-
glory is not opposed to magnanimity.

Ohj. 2. Further, Vainglory is not, like pusillanimity,
opposed to magnanimity by way of deficiency, for this seems
inconsistent with vainglory. Nor is it opposed to it by way
of excess, for in this wa}^ presumption and ambition are
opposed to magnanimity, as stated above (Q. CXXX., A. 2:
Q. CXXXL, A. 2): and these differ from vainglory. There-
fore vainglory is not opposed to magnanimity.

Ohj. 3. Further, A gloss on Philip, ii. 3, Let nothing he
done through contention, neither hy vainglory, says: Some
among them were given to dissension and restlessness, con-
tending with one another for the sake of vainglory. But
contention* is not opposed to magnanimity. Neither
therefore is vainglory.

On the contrary, Tully says {De Offic. i.) under the heading,
Magnanimity consists in two things : We should heware of
the desire for glory, since it enslaves the mind, which a mag-

* Of. Q. XXXVIII.



28i OF VAINGLORY Q. 132. Art. 2

nanimous man should ever strive to keep untrammelled.
Therefore it is opposed to magnanimity.

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. CIII., A. i, ad 3), glory
is an effect of honour and praise: because from the fact that
a man is praised, or shown any kind of reverence, he acquires
charity in the knowledge of others. And since magnanimity
is about honour, as stated above (Q. CXXIX., AA. i, 2),
it follows that it also is about glory: seeing that as a man
uses honour moderately, so too does he use glory in modera-
tion. Wherefore inordinate desire of glory is directly
opposed to magnanimity.

Reply Obj. i. To think so much of little things as to glory
in them is itself opposed to magnanimity. Wherefore it
is said of the magnanimous man {Ethic, iv.) that honour is
of little account to him. In like manner he thinks little of
other things that are sought for honour's sake, such as power
and wealth. Likewise it is inconsistent with magnanimity
to glory in things that are not; wherefore it is said of the
magnanimous man {Ethic, iv.) that he cares more for truth
than for opinion. Again it is incompatible with magnani-
mity for a man to glory in the testimony of human praise,
as though he deemed this something great; wherefore it is
said of the magnanimous man {Ethic, iv., loc. cit.), that he
cares not to be praised. And so, when a man looks upon
little things as though they were great, nothing hinders this
from being contrary to magnanimity, as well as to other
virtues.

Reply Obj. 2. He that is desirous of vainglory does in
truth fall short of being magnanimous, because he glories in
what the magnanimous man thinks little of, as stated in the
preceding Reply. But if we consider his estimate, he is
opposed to the magnanimous man by way of excess, because
the glory which he seeks is something great in his estimation,
and he tends thereto in excess of his deserts.

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above (Q. CXXVIL, A. 2, ad 2),
the opposition of vices does not depend on their effects.
Nevertheless contention, if done intentionally, is opposed to
magnanimity: since no one contends save for what he



Q. 132. Art. 3 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 282

deems great. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic, iv. 3)
that the magnanimous man is not contentious, because
nothing is great in his estimation.



Third Article,
whether vainglory is a mortal sin ?

We proceed thus to the Third Article : —

Objection i. It seems that vainglory is a mortal sin.
For nothing precludes the eternal reward except a mortal
sin. Now vainglory precludes the eternal reward : for it is
written (Matth. vi. i) : Take heed, that you do not give justice
before men, to be seen by them : otherwise you shall not have a
reward of your Father Who is in heaven. Therefore vainglory
is a mortal sin.

Obj. 2. Further, Whoever appropriates to himself that
which is proper to God, sins mortally. Now by desiring
vainglory, a man appropriates to himself that which is
proper to God. For it is written (Isa. xlii. 8) : I will not give
My glory to another, and (i Tim. i. 17) : To ... the only
God be honour and glory. Therefore vainglory is a mortal sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Apparently a sin is mortal if it be most
dangerous and harmful. Now vainglory is a sin of this
kind, because a gloss of Augustine on i Thess. ii. 4, God,
Who proveth our hearts, says : Unless a man war against the
love of human glory he does not perceive its baneful power,
for though it be easy for anyone not to desire praise as long as
one does not get it, it is difficult not to take pleasure in it, when
it is given. Chrysostom also says {Hom. xix. in Matth.)
that vainglory enters secretly, and robs us insensibly of all
our inward possessions. Therefore vainglory is a mortal
sin.

On the contrary, Chrysostom says* that while other vices
find their abode in the servants of the devil, vainglory finds
a place even in the servants of Christ. Yet in the latter there
is no mortal sin. Therefore vainglory is not a mortal sin.

* Horn. xiii. in the Opus Imperjectum falsely ascribed to S. John
Chrysostom.



283 C)F VAINGLORY Q. 132. Art. 3

I answer that, As stated above (Q. XXIV., A. 12: Q. CX.,
A. 4: Q. CXIL, A. 2), a sin is mortal through being contrary
to charity. Now the sin of vainglory, considered in itself,
does not seem to be contrary to charity as regards the love
of one's neighbour: yet as regards the love of God it may
be contrary to charity in two ways. In one way, by reason
of the matter about which one glories : for instance when
one glories in something false that is opposed to the reverence
we owe God, according to Ezech. xxviii. 2, Thy heart is
lifted up, and Thou hast said: I am God, and i Cor. iv. 7,
What hast thou that thou hast not received ? And if thou hast
received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it ?
Or again when a man prefers to God the temporal good in
which he glories : for this is forbidden ( Jerem. ix. 23, 24) :
Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the
strong man glory in his strength, and let not the rich man
glory in his riches. But let him that glorieth glory in this,
that he under standeth and knoweth Me. Or again when a man
prefers the testimony of man to God's; thus it is written in
reproval of certain people (John xii. 43) : For they loved the
glory of men more than the glory of God.

In another way vainglory may be contrary to charity,
on the part of the one who glories, in that he refers his
intention to glory as his last end: so that he directs even
virtuous deeds thereto, and, in order to obtain it, forbears
not from doing even that which is against God. In this
way it is a mortal sin. Wherefore Augustine says {De
Civ. Dei v. 14) that this vice, namely the love of human
praise, is so hostile to a godly faith, if the heart desires glory
more than it fears or loves God, that Our Lord said (John v. 44) :
How can you believe, who receive glory one from another,
and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek ?

If, however, the love of human glory, though it be vain,
be not inconsistent with charity, neither as regards the
matter gloried in, nor as to the intention of him that seeks
glory, it is not a mortal but a venial sin.

Reply Obj. i. No man, by sinning, merits eternal life:
wherefore a virtuous deed loses its power to merit eternal



Q. 132. Art. 4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 284

life, if it be done for the sake of vainglory, even though
that vainglory be not a mortal sin. On the other hand when
a man loses the eternal reward simply through vainglory,
and not merely in respect of one act, vainglory is a mortal
sin.

Reply Ohj. 2. Not every man that is desirous of vainglory,
desires the excellence which belongs to God alone. For
the glory due to God alone differs from the glory due to a
virtuous or rich man.

Reply Ohj. 3. Vainglory is stated to be a dangerous sin,
not only on account of its gravity, but also because it is a
disposition to grave sins, in so far as it renders man presump-
tuous and too self-confident : and so it gradually disposes a
man to lose his inward goods.

Fourth Article,
whether vainglory is a capital vice ?

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : —

Objection i. It seems that vainglory is not a capital sin.
For a vice that always arises from another vice is seemingly
not capital. But vainglory always arises from pride.
Therefore vainglory is not a capital vice.

Otj, 2. Further, Honour would seem to take precedence
of glory, for this is its effect. Now ambition which is inor-
dinate desire of honour is not a capital vice. Neither
therefore is the desire of vainglory.

Ohj. 3. Further, A capital vice has a certain prominence.
But vainglory seems to have no prominence, neither as a
sin, because it is not always a mortal sin, nor considered as
an appetible good, since human glory is apparently a frail
thing, and is something outside man himself. Therefore
vainglory is not a capital vice.

On the contrary, Gregory {Moral, xxxi.) numbers vain-
glory among the seven capital vices.

/ answer that, The capital vices are enumerated in two
ways. For some reckon pride as one of their number:
and these do not place vainglory among the capital vices.



285 OF VAINGLORY Q. 132. Art. 4

Gregory, however {Moral, xxxi.), reckons pride to be the
queen of all the vices, and vainglory, which is the immediate
offspring of pride, he reckons to be a capital vice : and not
without reason. For pride, as we shall state farther on
(Q. CLIL, AA. I, 2), denotes inordinate desire of excellence.
But whatever good one may desire, one desires a certain
perfection and excellence therefrom: wherefore the end of
every vice is directed to the end of pride, so that this vice
seems to exercise a kind of causality over the other vices,
and ought not to be reckoned among the special sources of
vice, known as the capital vices. Now among the goods
that are the means whereby man acquires honour, glory
seems to be the most conducive to that effect, inasmuch
as it denotes the manifestation of a man's goodness: since
good is naturally loved and honoured by all. Wherefore,
just as by the glory which is in God's sight man acquires
honour in Divine things, so too by the glory which is in
the sight of man he acquires excellence in human things.
Hence on account of its close connexion with excellence,
which men desire above all, it follows that it is most desirable.
And since many vices arise from the inordinate desire
thereof, it follows that vainglory is a capital vice.

Reply Obj. i. It is not impossible for a capital vice to
arise from pride, since as stated above (in the body of the
Article and I.-IL, Q. LXXXIV., A. 2) pride is the queen
and mother of all the vices.

Reply Obj. 2. Praise and honour, as stated above (A. 2),
stand in relation to glory as the causes from which it pro-
ceeds, so that glory is compared to them as their end. For
the reason why a man loves to be honoured and praised
is that he thinks thereby to acquire a certain renown in the
knowledge of others.

Reply Obj. 3. Vainglory stands prominent under the
aspect of desirability, for the reason given above, and this
suffices for it to be reckoned a capital vice. Nor is it always
necessary for a capital vice to be a mortal sin; for mortal
sin can arise from venial sin, inasmuch as venial sin can
dispose man thereto.



Q. 132. Art. 5 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " 286



Fifth Article.

whether the daughters of vainglory are suitably
reckoned to be disobedience, boastfulness,
hypocrisy, contention, obstinacy, discord, and
love of novelties ?

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article: —

Objection i. It seems that the daughters of vainglory
are unsuitably reckoned to be disobedience, boastfulness,
hypocrisy, contention, obstinacy, discord, and eccentricity,^
For according to Gregory {Moral, xxiii.) boastfulness is
numbered among the species of pride. Now pride does not
arise from vainglory, rather is it the other way about, as
Gregory says [Moral, xxxi.). Therefore boastfulness should
not be reckoned among the daughters of vainglory.

Obj. 2. Further, Contention and discord seem to be the
outcome chiefly of anger. But anger is a capital vice
condivided with vainglory. Therefore it seems that they
are not the daughters of vainglory.

Obj. 3. Further, Chrysostom says [Horn. xix. in Matth.)
that vainglory is always evil, but especially in philan-
thropy, i.e. mercy. And yet this is nothing new, for it
is an established custom among men. Therefore eccen-
tricity should not be specially reckoned as a daughter of
vainglory.

On the contrary stands the authority of Gregory {Moral.
xxxi.), who there assigns the above daughters to vainglory.

/ answer that. As stated above (Q. XXXIV., A. 5:
Q. XXXV., A. 4: I.-IL, Q. LXXXIV., AA. 3, 4), the vices
which by their very nature are such as to be directed to the
end of a certain capital vice, are called its daughters. Now
the end of vainglory is the manifestation of one's own
excellence, as stated above (AA. i, 4): and to this end a
man may tend in two ways. In one way directly, either by
words, and this is boasting, or by deeds, and then if they
be true and call for astonishment, it is love of novelties

* Prsesumptio novitatum, literally presumption of novelties.



287 OF VAINGLORY Q. 132. Art. 5

which men are wont to wonder at most ; but if they be false,
it is hypocrisy. In another way a man strives to make
known his excellence by showing that he is not inferior to
another, and this in four ways. First, as regards the
intellect, and thus we have obstinacy, by which a man is
too much attached to his own opinion, being unwilhng to
believe one that is better. Secondly, as regards the will,
and then we have discord, whereby a man is unwilling to
give up his own will, and agree with others. Thirdly, as
regards speech, and then we have contention, whereby a man
quarrels noisily with another. Fourthly, as regards deeds,
and this is disobedience, whereby a man refuses to carry
out the command of his superiors.

Reply Obj. i. As stated above (Q. CXII., AA. i, 2),
boasting is reckoned a kind of pride, as regards its interior
cause, which is arrogance: but outward boasting, according
to Ethic, iv., is directed sometimes to gain, but more often
to glory and honour, and thus it is the result of vainglory.

Reply Obj. 2. Anger is not the cause of discord and con-
tention, except in conjunction with vainglory, in that a
man thinks it a glorious thing for him not to yield to the
will and words of others.

Reply Obj. 3. Vainglory is reproved in connexion with
almsdeeds on account of the lack of charity apparent in
one who prefers vainglory to the good of his neighbour,
seeing that he does the latter for the sake of the former.
But a man is not reproved for presuming to give alms as
though this were something novel.



QUESTION CXXXIII.

OF PUSILLANIMITY.

[In Two Articles.)

We must now consider pusillanimity. Under this head
there are two points of inquiry: (i) Whether pusillanimity
is a sin ? (2) To what virtue is it opposed ?

First Article,
whether pusillanimity is a sin ?

We proceed thus to the First Article : —

Objection i. It seems that pusillanimity is not a sin. For
every sin makes a man evil, just as every virtue makes a
man good. But a fainthearted man is not evil, as the
Philosopher says (Ethic, iv. 3). Therefore pusillanimity is
not a sin.

Obj. 2. Further, The Philosopher says (ibid.) that a
fainthearted man is especially one who is worthy of great
goods, yet does not deem himself worthy of them. Now no one
is worthy of great goods except the virtuous, since as the
Philosopher again says (ibid.), none but the virtuous are
truly worthy , of honour. Therefore the fainthearted are
virtuous : and consequently pusillanimity is not a sin.

Obj. 3. Further, Pride is the beginning of all sin (Ecclus.
X. 15). But pusillanimity does not proceed from pride,
since the proud man sets himself above what he is, while
the fainthearted man withdraws from the things he is
worthy of. Therefore pusillanimity is not a sin.

Obj. 4. Further, The Philosopher says (Ethic, iv. 3) that
he who deems himself less worthy than he is, is said to be faint-

288



289 PUSILLANIMITY Q. 133- Art i.

hearted. Now sometimes holy men deem themselves less
worthy than they are; for instance, Moses and Elias, who
were worthy of the ofhce God chose them for, which they
both humbly declined (Exod. iii. 11: Jerem. i. 6). There-
fore pusillanimity is not a sin.

On the contrary, Nothing in human conduct is to be
avoided save sin. Now pusillanimity is to be avoided:
for it is written (Coloss. iii. 21) : Fathers, provoke not your
children to indignation, lest they he discouraged. Therefore
pusillanimity is a sin.

/ answer that, Whatever is contrary to a natural inclina-
tion is a sin, because it is contrary to a law of nature.
Now everything has a natural incUnation to accomplish an
action that is commensurate with its power : as is evident
in all natural things, whether animate or inanimate. Now
just as presumption makes a man exceed what is propor-
tionate to his power, by striving to do more than he can, so
pusillanimity maizes a man fall short of what is proportionate
to his power, by refusing to tend to that which is commen-
surate thereto. Wherefore as presumption is a sin, so is
pusillanimity. Hence it is that the servant who buried in
the earth the money he had received from his master, and
did not trade with it through fainthearted fear, was punished


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 25 26

Online LibraryAmerican UniversityAmerican University Bulletin Catalog Issue: College of Arts and Sciences Announcements (Volume 1941-1942) → online text (page 22 of 26)