FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 116, Art. 1]

Whether Quarreling Is Opposed to the Virtue of Friendship or

Affability?

Objection 1: It seems that quarreling is not opposed to the virtue of

friendship or affability. For quarreling seems to pertain to discord,

just as contention does. But discord is opposed to charity, as stated

above (Q. 37, A. 1). Therefore quarreling is also.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 26:21): "An angry man stirreth

up strife." Now anger is opposed to meekness. Therefore strife or

quarreling is also.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (James 4:1): "From whence are wars and

quarrels [Douay: 'contentions'] among you? Are they not hence, from

your concupiscences which war in your members?" Now it would seem

contrary to temperance to follow one's concupiscences. Therefore it

seems that quarreling is opposed not to friendship but to temperance.

_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher opposes quarreling to friendship

(Ethic. iv, 6).

_I answer that,_ Quarreling consists properly in words, when, namely,

one person contradicts another's words. Now two things may be

observed in this contradiction. For sometimes contradiction arises on

account of the person who speaks, the contradictor refusing to

consent with him from lack of that love which unites minds together,

and this seems to pertain to discord, which is contrary to charity.

Whereas at times contradiction arises by reason of the speaker being

a person to whom someone does not fear to be disagreeable: whence

arises quarreling, which is opposed to the aforesaid friendship or

affability, to which it belongs to behave agreeably towards those

among whom we dwell. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 6) that

"those who are opposed to everything with the intent of being

disagreeable, and care for nobody, are said to be peevish and

quarrelsome."

Reply Obj. 1: Contention pertains rather to the contradiction of

discord, while quarreling belongs to the contradiction which has the

intention of displeasing.

Reply Obj. 2: The direct opposition of virtues to vices depends, not

on their causes, since one vice may arise from many causes, but on

the species of their acts. And although quarreling arises at times

from anger, it may arise from many other causes, hence it does not

follow that it is directly opposed to meekness.

Reply Obj. 3: James speaks there of concupiscence considered as a

general evil whence all vices arise. Thus, a gloss on Rom. 7:7 says:

"The law is good, since by forbidding concupiscence, it forbids all

evil."

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 724 / 1128 题