FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 87, Art. 5]

Whether Every Sin Incurs a Debt of Eternal Punishment?

Objection 1: It would seem that every sin incurs a debt of eternal

punishment. Because punishment, as stated above (A. 4), is

proportionate to the fault. Now eternal punishment differs infinitely

from temporal punishment: whereas no sin, apparently, differs

infinitely from another, since every sin is a human act, which cannot

be infinite. Since therefore some sins incur a debt of everlasting

punishment, as stated above (A. 4), it seems that no sin incurs a

debt of mere temporal punishment.

Obj. 2: Further, original sin is the least of all sins, wherefore

Augustine says (Enchiridion xciii) that "the lightest punishment is

incurred by those who are punished for original sin alone." But

original sin incurs everlasting punishment, since children who have

died in original sin through not being baptized, will never see the

kingdom of God, as shown by our Lord's words (John 3:3): "Unless a

man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Much more,

therefore, will the punishments of all other sins be everlasting.

Obj. 3: Further, a sin does not deserve greater punishment through

being united to another sin; for Divine justice has allotted its

punishment to each sin. Now a venial sin deserves eternal punishment

if it be united to a mortal sin in a lost soul, because in hell there

is no remission of sins. Therefore venial sin by itself deserves

eternal punishment. Therefore temporal punishment is not due for any

sin.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Dial. iv, 39), that certain slighter

sins are remitted after this life. Therefore all sins are not

punished eternally.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a sin incurs a debt of

eternal punishment, in so far as it causes an irreparable disorder in

the order of Divine justice, through being contrary to the very

principle of that order, viz. the last end. Now it is evident that in

some sins there is disorder indeed, but such as not to involve

contrariety in respect of the last end, but only in respect of things

referable to the end, in so far as one is too much or too little

intent on them without prejudicing the order to the last end: as, for

instance, when a man is too fond of some temporal thing, yet would

not offend God for its sake, by breaking one of His commandments.

Consequently such sins do not incur everlasting, but only temporal

punishment.

Reply Obj. 1: Sins do not differ infinitely from one another in

respect of their turning towards mutable good, which constitutes the

substance of the sinful act; but they do differ infinitely in respect

of their turning away from something. Because some sins consist in

turning away from the last end, and some in a disorder affecting

things referable to the end: and the last end differs infinitely from

the things that are referred to it.

Reply Obj. 2: Original sin incurs everlasting punishment, not on

account of its gravity, but by reason of the condition of the

subject, viz. a human being deprived of grace, without which there is

no remission of sin.

The same answer applies to the Third Objection about venial sin.

Because eternity of punishment does not correspond to the quantity of

the sin, but to its irremissibility, as stated above (A. 3).

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 564 / 746 题