FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 142, Art. 1]

Whether Insensibility Is a Vice?

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

those are called insensible who are deficient with regard to

pleasures of touch. Now seemingly it is praiseworthy and virtuous to

be altogether deficient in such matters: for it is written (Dan.

10:2, 3): "In those days Daniel mourned the days of three weeks, I

ate no desirable bread, and neither flesh nor wine entered my mouth,

neither was I anointed with ointment." Therefore insensibility is not

a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, "man's good is to be in accord with reason,"

according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Now abstinence from all

pleasures of touch is most conducive to man's progress in the good of

reason: for it is written (Dan. 1:17) that "to the children" who took

pulse for their food (Dan. 1:12), "God gave knowledge, and

understanding in every book and wisdom." Therefore insensibility,

which rejects these pleasures altogether, is not sinful.

Obj. 3: Further, that which is a very effective means of avoiding sin

would seem not to be sinful. Now the most effective remedy in

avoiding sin is to shun pleasures, and this pertains to

insensibility. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 9) that "if we

deny ourselves pleasures we are less liable to sin." Therefore there

is nothing vicious in insensibility.

_On the contrary,_ Nothing save vice is opposed to virtue. Now

insensibility is opposed to the virtue of temperance according to the

Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 11). Therefore insensibility is a

vice.

_I answer that,_ Whatever is contrary to the natural order is

vicious. Now nature has introduced pleasure into the operations that

are necessary for man's life. Wherefore the natural order requires

that man should make use of these pleasures, in so far as they are

necessary for man's well-being, as regards the preservation either of

the individual or of the species. Accordingly, if anyone were to

reject pleasure to the extent of omitting things that are necessary

for nature's preservation, he would sin, as acting counter to the

order of nature. And this pertains to the vice of insensibility.

It must, however, be observed that it is sometimes praiseworthy, and

even necessary for the sake of an end, to abstain from such pleasures

as result from these operations. Thus, for the sake of the body's

health, certain persons refrain from pleasures of meat, drink, and

sex; as also for the fulfilment of certain engagements: thus athletes

and soldiers have to deny themselves many pleasures, in order to

fulfil their respective duties. In like manner penitents, in order to

recover health of soul, have recourse to abstinence from pleasures,

as a kind of diet, and those who are desirous of giving themselves up

to contemplation and Divine things need much to refrain from carnal

things. Nor do any of these things pertain to the vice of

insensibility, because they are in accord with right reason.

Reply Obj. 1: Daniel abstained thus from pleasures, not through any

horror of pleasure as though it were evil in itself, but for some

praiseworthy end, in order, namely, to adapt himself to the heights

of contemplation by abstaining from pleasures of the body. Hence the

text goes on to tell of the revelation that he received immediately

afterwards.

Reply Obj. 2: Since man cannot use his reason without his sensitive

powers, which need a bodily organ, as stated in the First Part (Q.

84, AA. 7, 8), man needs to sustain his body in order that he may use

his reason. Now the body is sustained by means of operations that

afford pleasure: wherefore the good of reason cannot be in a man if

he abstain from all pleasures. Yet this need for using pleasures of

the body will be greater or less, according as man needs more or less

the powers of his body in accomplishing the act of reason. Wherefore

it is commendable for those who undertake the duty of giving

themselves to contemplation, and of imparting to others a spiritual

good, by a kind of spiritual procreation, as it were, to abstain from

many pleasures, but not for those who are in duty bound to bodily

occupations and carnal procreation.

Reply Obj. 3: In order to avoid sin, pleasure must be shunned, not

altogether, but so that it is not sought more than necessity requires.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 854 / 1128 题