FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 10, Art. 1]

Whether Unbelief Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that unbelief is not a sin. For every sin

is contrary to nature, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. ii, 4). Now

unbelief seems not to be contrary to nature; for Augustine says (De

Praedest. Sanct. v) that "to be capable to having faith, just as to be

capable of having charity, is natural to all men; whereas to have

faith, even as to have charity, belongs to the grace of the faithful."

Therefore not to have faith, which is to be an unbeliever, is not a

sin.

Obj. 2: Further, no one sins that which he cannot avoid, since every

sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's power to avoid unbelief,

for he cannot avoid it unless he have faith, because the Apostle says

(Rom. 10:14): "How shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not

heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Therefore

unbelief does not seem to be a sin.

Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (I-II, Q. 84, A. 4), there are seven

capital sins, to which all sins are reduced. But unbelief does not

seem to be comprised under any of them. Therefore unbelief is not a

sin.

_On the contrary,_ Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is a virtue,

and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief is a sin.

_I answer that,_ Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of

pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because

he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of

opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the

faith, or despises it, according to Isa. 53:1: "Who hath believed our

report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is

in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in

those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character,

not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine

things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like

unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot

be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of

unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and

spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds

(Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they

believed not in Christ."

Reply Obj. 1: To have the faith is not part of human nature, but it

is part of human nature that man's mind should not thwart his inner

instinct, and the outward preaching of the truth. Hence, in this way,

unbelief is contrary to nature.

Reply Obj. 2: This argument takes unbelief as denoting a pure

negation.

Reply Obj. 3: Unbelief, in so far as it is a sin, arises from pride,

through which man is unwilling to subject his intellect to the rules

of faith, and to the sound interpretation of the Fathers. Hence

Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45) that "presumptuous innovations arise

from vainglory."

It might also be replied that just as the theological virtues are not

reduced to the cardinal virtues, but precede them, so too, the vices

opposed to the theological virtues are not reduced to the capital

vices.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 73 / 1128 题