SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 35, Art. 2]

Whether Sloth Is a Special Vice?

Objection 1: It would seem that sloth is not a special vice. For that

which is common to all vices does not constitute a special kind of

vice. But every vice makes a man sorrowful about the opposite

spiritual good: for the lustful man is sorrowful about the good of

continence, and the glutton about the good of abstinence. Since then

sloth is sorrow for spiritual good, as stated above (A. 1), it seems

that sloth is not a special sin.

Obj. 2: Further, sloth, through being a kind of sorrow, is opposed to

joy. Now joy is not accounted one special virtue. Therefore sloth

should not be reckoned a special vice.

Obj. 3: Further, since spiritual good is a general kind of object,

which virtue seeks, and vice shuns, it does not constitute a special

virtue or vice, unless it be determined by some addition. Now

nothing, seemingly, except toil, can determine it to sloth, if this

be a special vice; because the reason why a man shuns spiritual

goods, is that they are toilsome, wherefore sloth is a kind of

weariness: while dislike of toil, and love of bodily repose seem to

be due to the same cause, viz. idleness. Hence sloth would be nothing

but laziness, which seems untrue, for idleness is opposed to

carefulness, whereas sloth is opposed to joy. Therefore sloth is not

a special vice.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) distinguishes sloth from

the other vices. Therefore it is a special vice.

_I answer that,_ Since sloth is sorrow for spiritual good, if we take

spiritual good in a general way, sloth will not be a special vice,

because, as stated above (I-II, Q. 71, A. 1), every vice shuns the

spiritual good of its opposite virtue. Again it cannot be said that

sloth is a special vice, in so far as it shuns spiritual good, as

toilsome, or troublesome to the body, or as a hindrance to the body's

pleasure, for this again would not sever sloth from carnal vices,

whereby a man seeks bodily comfort and pleasure.

Wherefore we must say that a certain order exists among spiritual

goods, since all the spiritual goods that are in the acts of each

virtue are directed to one spiritual good, which is the Divine good,

about which there is a special virtue, viz. charity. Hence it is

proper to each virtue to rejoice in its own spiritual good, which

consists in its own act, while it belongs specially to charity to

have that spiritual joy whereby one rejoices in the Divine good. In

like manner the sorrow whereby one is displeased at the spiritual

good which is in each act of virtue, belongs, not to any special

vice, but to every vice, but sorrow in the Divine good about which

charity rejoices, belongs to a special vice, which is called sloth.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 260 / 1128 题