SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 76, Art. 2]

Whether It Is Lawful to Curse an Irrational Creature?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unlawful to curse an irrational

creature. Cursing would seem to be lawful chiefly in its relation to

punishment. Now irrational creatures are not competent subjects

either of guilt or of punishment. Therefore it is unlawful to curse

them.

Obj. 2: Further, in an irrational creature there is nothing but the

nature which God made. But it is unlawful to curse this even in the

devil, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse

an irrational creature.

Obj. 3: Further, irrational creatures are either stable, as bodies,

or transient, as the seasons. Now, according to Gregory (Moral. iv,

2), "it is useless to curse what does not exist, and wicked to curse

what exists." Therefore it is nowise lawful to curse an irrational

creature.

_On the contrary,_ our Lord cursed the fig tree, as related in Matt.

21:19; and Job cursed his day, according to Job 3:1.

_I answer that,_ Benediction and malediction, properly speaking,

regard things to which good or evil may happen, viz. rational

creatures: while good and evil are said to happen to irrational

creatures in relation to the rational creature for whose sake they

are. Now they are related to the rational creature in several ways.

First by way of ministration, in so far as irrational creatures

minister to the needs of man. In this sense the Lord said to man

(Gen. 3:17): "Cursed is the earth in thy work," so that its

barrenness would be a punishment to man. Thus also David cursed the

mountains of Gelboe, according to Gregory's expounding (Moral. iv,

3). Again the irrational creature is related to the rational creature

by way of signification: and thus our Lord cursed the fig tree in

signification of Judea. Thirdly, the irrational creature is related

to rational creatures as something containing them, namely by way of

time or place: and thus Job cursed the day of his birth, on account

of the original sin which he contracted in birth, and on account of

the consequent penalties. In this sense also we may understand David

to have cursed the mountains of Gelboe, as we read in 2 Kings 1:21,

namely on account of the people slaughtered there.

But to curse irrational beings, considered as creatures of God, is a

sin of blasphemy; while to curse them considered in themselves is

idle and vain and consequently unlawful.

From this the Replies to the objections may easily be gathered.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 502 / 1128 题