THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 36, Art. 3]

Whether Envy Is a Mortal Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that envy is not a mortal sin. For since

envy is a kind of sorrow, it is a passion of the sensitive appetite.

Now there is no mortal sin in the sensuality, but only in the reason,

as Augustine declares (De Trin. xii, 12) [*Cf. I-II, Q. 74, A. 4].

Therefore envy is not a mortal sin.

Obj. 2: Further, there cannot be mortal sin in infants. But envy can

be in them, for Augustine says (Confess. i): "I myself have seen and

known even a baby envious, it could not speak, yet it turned pale and

looked bitterly on its foster-brother." Therefore envy is not a

mortal sin.

Obj. 3: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to some virtue. But

envy is contrary, not to a virtue but to _nemesis_, which is a

passion, according to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 9). Therefore envy

is not a mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 5:2): "Envy slayeth the little

one." Now nothing slays spiritually, except mortal sin. Therefore

envy is a mortal sin.

_I answer that,_ Envy is a mortal sin, in respect of its genus. For

the genus of a sin is taken from its object; and envy according to

the aspect of its object is contrary to charity, whence the soul

derives its spiritual life, according to 1 John 3:14: "We know that

we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren." Now

the object both of charity and of envy is our neighbor's good, but by

contrary movements, since charity rejoices in our neighbor's good,

while envy grieves over it, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it is

evident that envy is a mortal sin in respect of its genus.

Nevertheless, as stated above (Q. 35, A. 4; I-II, Q. 72, A. 5, ad 1),

in every kind of mortal sin we find certain imperfect movements in

the sensuality, which are venial sins: such are the first movement of

concupiscence, in the genus of adultery, and the first movement of

anger, in the genus of murder, and so in the genus of envy we find

sometimes even in perfect men certain first movements, which are

venial sins.

Reply Obj. 1: The movement of envy in so far as it is a passion of

the sensuality, is an imperfect thing in the genus of human acts, the

principle of which is the reason, so that envy of that kind is not a

mortal sin. The same applies to the envy of little children who have

not the use of reason: wherefore the Reply to the Second Objection is

manifest.

Reply Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 9), envy is

contrary both to _nemesis_ and to pity, but for different reasons.

For it is directly contrary to pity, their principal objects being

contrary to one another, since the envious man grieves over his

neighbor's good, whereas the pitiful man grieves over his neighbor's

evil, so that the envious have no pity, as he states in the same

passage, nor is the pitiful man envious. On the other hand, envy is

contrary to _nemesis_ on the part of the man whose good grieves the

envious man, for _nemesis_ is sorrow for the good of the undeserving

according to Ps. 72:3: "I was envious of the wicked, when I saw the

prosperity of sinners" [*Douay: "because I had a zeal on occasion of

the wicked, seeing the prosperity of sinners"], whereas the envious

grieves over the good of those who are deserving of it. Hence it is

clear that the former contrariety is more direct than the latter. Now

pity is a virtue, and an effect proper to charity: so that envy is

contrary to pity and charity.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 267 / 1128 题