FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 54, Art. 1]

Whether Negligence Is a Special Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that negligence is not a special sin. For

negligence is opposed to diligence. But diligence is required in

every virtue. Therefore negligence is not a special sin.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is common to every sin is not a special

sin. Now negligence is common to every sin, because he who sins

neglects that which withdraws him from sin, and he who perseveres in

sin neglects to be contrite for his sin. Therefore negligence is not

a special sin.

Obj. 3: Further, every special sin has a determinate matter. But

negligence seems to have no determinate matter: since it is neither

about evil or indifferent things (for no man is accused of negligence

if he omit them), nor about good things, for if these be done

negligently, they are no longer good. Therefore it seems that

negligence is not a special vice.

_On the contrary,_ Sins committed through negligence, are

distinguished from those which are committed through contempt.

_I answer that,_ Negligence denotes lack of due solicitude. Now every

lack of a due act is sinful: wherefore it is evident that negligence

is a sin, and that it must needs have the character of a special sin

according as solicitude is the act of a special virtue. For certain

sins are special through being about a special matter, as lust is

about sexual matters, while some vices are special on account of

their having a special kind of act which extends to all kinds of

matter, and such are all vices affecting an act of reason, since

every act of reason extends to any kind of moral matter. Since then

solicitude is a special act of reason, as stated above (Q. 47, A. 9),

it follows that negligence, which denotes lack of solicitude, is a

special sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Diligence seems to be the same as solicitude, because

the more we love (_diligimus_) a thing the more solicitous are we

about it. Hence diligence, no less than solicitude, is required for

every virtue, in so far as due acts of reason are requisite for every

virtue.

Reply Obj. 2: In every sin there must needs be a defect affecting an

act of reason, for instance a defect in counsel or the like. Hence

just as precipitation is a special sin on account of a special act of

reason which is omitted, namely counsel, although it may be found in

any kind of sin; so negligence is a special sin on account of the

lack of a special act of reason, namely solicitude, although it is

found more or less in all sins.

Reply Obj. 3: Properly speaking the matter of negligence is a good

that one ought to do, not that it is a good when it is done

negligently, but because on account of negligence it incurs a lack of

goodness, whether a due act be entirely omitted through lack of

solicitude, or some due circumstance be omitted.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 371 / 1128 题