Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 29 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de pace. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider Peace, under which head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum pax sit idem quod concordia. | (1) Whether peace is the same as concord? |
| Secundo, utrum omnia appetant pacem. | (2) Whether all things desire peace? |
| Tertio, utrum pax sit effectus caritatis. | (3) Whether peace is an effect of charity? |
| Quarto, utrum pax sit virtus. | (4) Whether peace is a virtue? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 29 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pax sit idem quod concordia. Dicit enim Augustinus, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod pax hominum est ordinata concordia. Sed non loquimur nunc nisi de pace hominum. Ergo pax est idem quod concordia. | Objection 1: It would seem that peace is the same as concord. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 13): "Peace among men is well ordered concord." Now we are speaking here of no other peace than that of men. Therefore peace is the same as concord. |
| Praeterea, concordia est quaedam unio voluntatum. Sed ratio pacis in tali unione consistit, dicit enim Dionysius, XI cap. de Div. Nom., quod pax est omnium unitiva et consensus operativa. Ergo pax est idem quod concordia. | Objection 2: Further, concord is union of wills. Now the nature of peace consists in such like union, for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xi) that peace unites all, and makes them of one mind. Therefore peace is the same as concord. |
| Praeterea, quorum est idem oppositum, et ipsa sunt idem. Sed idem opponitur concordiae et paci, scilicet dissensio, unde dicitur, I ad Cor. XIV, non est dissensionis Deus, sed pacis. Ergo pax est idem quod concordia. |
Objection 3: Further, things whose opposites are identical are themselves identical. Now the one same thing is opposed to concord and peace, viz. dissension; hence it is written (1 Cor. 16:33): "God is not the God of dissension but of peace." Therefore peace is the same as concord. |
| Sed contra est quod concordia potest esse aliquorum impiorum in malo. Sed non est pax impiis, ut dicitur Isaiae XLVIII. Ergo pax non est idem quod concordia. |
On the contrary, There can be concord in evil between wicked men. But "there is no peace to the wicked" (Is. 48:22). Therefore peace is not the same as concord. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod pax includit concordiam et aliquid addit. Unde ubicumque est pax, ibi est concordia, non tamen ubicumque est concordia, est pax, si nomen pacis proprie sumatur. | I answer that, Peace includes concord and adds something thereto. Hence wherever peace is, there is concord, but there is not peace, wherever there is concord, if we give peace its proper meaning. |
| Concordia enim, proprie sumpta, est ad alterum, inquantum scilicet diversorum cordium voluntates simul in unum consensum conveniunt. Contingit etiam unius hominis cor tendere in diversa, et hoc dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, secundum diversas potentias appetitivas, sicut appetitus sensitivus plerumque tendit in contrarium rationalis appetitus, secundum illud ad Gal. V, caro concupiscit adversus spiritum. Alio modo, inquantum una et eadem vis appetitiva in diversa appetibilia tendit quae simul assequi non potest. Unde necesse est esse repugnantiam motuum appetitus. Unio autem horum motuum est quidem de ratione pacis, non enim homo habet pacatum cor quandiu, etsi habeat aliquid quod vult, tamen adhuc restat ei aliquid volendum quod simul habere non potest. Haec autem unio non est de ratione concordiae. Unde concordia importat unionem appetituum diversorum appetentium, pax autem, supra hanc unionem, importat etiam appetituum unius appetentis unionem. | For concord, properly speaking, is between one man and another, in so far as the wills of various hearts agree together in consenting to the same thing. Now the heart of one man may happen to tend to diverse things, and this in two ways. First, in respect of the diverse appetitive powers: thus the sensitive appetite tends sometimes to that which is opposed to the rational appetite, according to Gal. 5:17: "The flesh lusteth against the spirit." Secondly, in so far as one and the same appetitive power tends to diverse objects of appetite, which it cannot obtain all at the same time: so that there must needs be a clashing of the movements of the appetite. Now the union of such movements is essential to peace, because man's heart is not at peace, so long as he has not what he wants, or if, having what he wants, there still remains something for him to want, and which he cannot have at the same time. On the other hand this union is not essential to concord: wherefore concord denotes union of appetites among various persons, while peace denotes, in addition to this union, the union of the appetites even in one man. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur ibi de pace quae est unius hominis ad alium. Et hanc pacem dicit esse concordiam, non quamlibet, sed ordinatam, ex eo scilicet quod unus homo concordat cum alio secundum illud quod utrique convenit. Si enim homo concordet cum alio non spontanea voluntate, sed quasi coactus timore alicuius mali imminentis, talis concordia non est vere pax, quia non servatur ordo utriusque concordantis, sed perturbatur ab aliquo timorem inferente. Et propter hoc praemittit quod pax est tranquillitas ordinis. Quae quidem tranquillitas consistit in hoc quod omnes motus appetitivi in uno homine conquiescunt. | Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is speaking there of that peace which is between one man and another, and he says that this peace is concord, not indeed any kind of concord, but that which is well ordered, through one man agreeing with another in respect of something befitting to both of them. For if one man concord with another, not of his own accord, but through being forced, as it were, by the fear of some evil that besets him, such concord is not really peace, because the order of each concordant is not observed, but is disturbed by some fear-inspiring cause. For this reason he premises that "peace is tranquillity of order," which tranquillity consists in all the appetitive movements in one man being set at rest together. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, si homo simul cum alio homine in idem consentiat, non tamen consensus eius est omnino unitus nisi etiam sibi invicem omnes motus appetitivi eius sint consentientes. | Reply to Objection 2: If one man consent to the same thing together with another man, his consent is nevertheless not perfectly united to himself, unless at the same time all his appetitive movements be in agreement. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod paci opponitur duplex dissensio, scilicet dissensio hominis ad seipsum, et dissensio hominis ad alterum. Concordiae vero opponitur haec sola secunda dissensio. | Reply to Objection 3: A twofold dissension is opposed to peace, namely dissension between a man and himself, and dissension between one man and another. The latter alone is opposed to concord. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 29 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia appetant pacem. Pax enim, secundum Dionysium, est unitiva consensus. Sed in his quae cognitione carent non potest uniri consensus. Ergo huiusmodi pacem appetere non possunt. | Objection 1: It would seem that not all things desire peace. For, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. xi), peace "unites consent." But there cannot be unity of consent in things which are devoid of knowledge. Therefore such things cannot desire peace. |
| Praeterea, appetitus non fertur simul ad contraria. Sed multi sunt appetentes bella et dissensiones. Ergo non omnes appetunt pacem. | Objection 2: Further, the appetite does not tend to opposite things at the same time. Now many desire war and dissension. Therefore all men do not desire peace. |
| Praeterea, solum bonum est appetibile. Sed quaedam pax videtur esse mala, alioquin dominus non diceret, Matth. X, non veni mittere pacem. Ergo non omnia pacem appetunt. |
Objection 3: Further, good alone is an object of appetite. But a certain peace is, seemingly, evil, else Our Lord would not have said (Mt. 10:34): "I came not to send peace." Therefore all things do not desire peace. |
| Praeterea, illud quod omnia appetunt videtur esse summum bonum, quod est ultimus finis. Sed pax non est huiusmodi, quia etiam in statu viae habetur; alioquin frustra dominus mandaret, Marc. IX, pacem habete inter vos. Ergo non omnia pacem appetunt. | Objection 4: Further, that which all desire is, seemingly, the sovereign good which is the last end. But this is not true of peace, since it is attainable even by a wayfarer; else Our Lord would vainly command (Mk. 9:49): "Have peace among you." Therefore all things do not desire peace. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod omnia pacem appetunt. Et idem etiam dicit Dionysius, XI cap. de Div. Nom. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 12,14) that "all things desire peace": and Dionysius says the same (Div. Nom. xi). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ex hoc ipso quod homo aliquid appetit, consequens est ipsum appetere eius quod appetit assecutionem, et per consequens remotionem eorum quae consecutionem impedire possunt. Potest autem impediri assecutio boni desiderati per contrarium appetitum vel sui ipsius vel alterius, et utrumque tollitur per pacem, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo necesse est quod omne appetens appetat pacem, inquantum scilicet omne appetens appetit tranquille et sine impedimento pervenire ad id quod appetit, in quo consistit ratio pacis, quam Augustinus definit tranquillitatem ordinis. | I answer that, From the very fact that a man desires a certain thing it follows that he desires to obtain what he desires, and, in consequence, to remove whatever may be an obstacle to his obtaining it. Now a man may be hindered from obtaining the good he desires, by a contrary desire either of his own or of some other, and both are removed by peace, as stated above. Hence it follows of necessity that whoever desires anything desires peace, in so far as he who desires anything, desires to attain, with tranquillity and without hindrance, to that which he desires: and this is what is meant by peace which Augustine defines (De Civ. Dei xix, 13) "the tranquillity of order." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pax importat unionem non solum appetitus intellectualis seu rationalis aut animalis, ad quos potest pertinere consensus, sed etiam appetitus naturalis. Et ideo Dionysius dicit quod pax est operativa et consensus et connaturalitatis, ut in consensu importetur unio appetituum ex cognitione procedentium; per connaturalitatem vero importatur unio appetituum naturalium. | Reply to Objection 1: Peace denotes union not only of the intellective or rational appetite, or of the animal appetite, in both of which consent may be found, but also of the natural appetite. Hence Dionysius says that "peace is the cause of consent and of connaturalness," where "consent" denotes the union of appetites proceeding from knowledge, and "connaturalness," the union of natural appetites. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illi etiam qui bella quaerunt et dissensiones non desiderant nisi pacem, quam se habere non aestimant. Ut enim dictum est, non est pax si quis cum alio concordet contra id quod ipse magis vellet. Et ideo homines quaerunt hanc concordiam rumpere bellando, tanquam defectum pacis habentem, ut ad pacem perveniant in qua nihil eorum voluntati repugnet. Et propter hoc omnes bellantes quaerunt per bella ad pacem aliquam pervenire perfectiorem quam prius haberent. | Reply to Objection 2: Even those who seek war and dissension, desire nothing but peace, which they deem themselves not to have. For as we stated above, there is no peace when a man concords with another man counter to what he would prefer. Consequently men seek by means of war to break this concord, because it is a defective peace, in order that they may obtain peace, where nothing is contrary to their will. Hence all wars are waged that men may find a more perfect peace than that which they had heretofore. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia pax consistit in quietatione et unione appetitus; sicut autem appetitus potest esse vel boni simpliciter vel boni apparentis, ita etiam et pax potest esse et vera et apparens, vera quidem pax non potest esse nisi circa appetitum veri boni; quia omne malum, etsi secundum aliquid appareat bonum, unde ex aliqua parte appetitum quietet, habet tamen multos defectus, ex quibus appetitus remanet inquietus et perturbatus. Unde pax vera non potest esse nisi in bonis et bonorum. Pax autem quae malorum est, est pax apparens et non vera. Unde dicitur Sap. XIV, in magno viventes inscientiae bello, tot et tanta mala pacem arbitrati sunt. | Reply to Objection 3: Peace gives calm and unity to the appetite. Now just as the appetite may tend to what is good simply, or to what is good apparently, so too, peace may be either true or apparent. There can be no true peace except where the appetite is directed to what is truly good, since every evil, though it may appear good in a way, so as to calm the appetite in some respect, has, nevertheless many defects, which cause the appetite to remain restless and disturbed. Hence true peace is only in good men and about good things. The peace of the wicked is not a true peace but a semblance thereof, wherefore it is written (Wis. 14:22): "Whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum vera pax non sit nisi de bono, sicut dupliciter habetur verum bonum, scilicet perfecte et imperfecte, ita est duplex pax vera. Una quidem perfecta, quae consistit in perfecta fruitione summi boni, per quam omnes appetitus uniuntur quietati in uno. Et hic est ultimus finis creaturae rationalis, secundum illud Psalm., qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Alia vero est pax imperfecta, quae habetur in hoc mundo. Quia etsi principalis animae motus quiescat in Deo, sunt tamen aliqua repugnantia et intus et extra quae perturbant hanc pacem. | Reply to Objection 4: Since true peace is only about good things, as the true good is possessed in two ways, perfectly and imperfectly, so there is a twofold true peace. One is perfect peace. It consists in the perfect enjoyment of the sovereign good, and unites all one's desires by giving them rest in one object. This is the last end of the rational creature, according to Ps. 147:3: "Who hath placed peace in thy borders." The other is imperfect peace, which may be had in this world, for though the chief movement of the soul finds rest in God, yet there are certain things within and without which disturb the peace. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 29 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod pax non sit proprius effectus caritatis. Caritas enim non habetur sine gratia gratum faciente. Sed pax a quibusdam habetur qui non habent gratiam gratum facientem, sicut et gentiles aliquando habent pacem. Ergo pax non est effectus caritatis. | Objection 1: It would seem that peace is not the proper effect of charity. For one cannot have charity without sanctifying grace. But some have peace who have not sanctifying grace, thus heathens sometimes have peace. Therefore peace is not the effect of charity. |
| Praeterea, illud non est effectus caritatis cuius contrarium cum caritate esse potest. Sed dissensio, quae contrariatur paci, potest esse cum caritate, videmus enim quod etiam sacri doctores, ut Hieronymus et Augustinus, in aliquibus opinionibus dissenserunt; Paulus etiam et Barnabas dissensisse leguntur, Act. XV. Ergo videtur quod pax non sit effectus caritatis. |
Objection 2: Further, if a certain thing is caused by charity, its contrary is not compatible with charity. But dissension, which is contrary to peace, is compatible with charity, for we find that even holy doctors, such as Jerome and Augustine, dissented in some of their opinions. We also read that Paul and Barnabas dissented from one another (Acts 15). Therefore it seems that peace is not the effect of charity. |
| Praeterea, idem non est proprius effectus diversorum. Sed pax est effectus iustitiae, secundum illud Isaiae XXXII, opus iustitiae pax. Ergo non est effectus carita. | Objection 3: Further, the same thing is not the proper effect of different things. Now peace is the effect of justice, according to Is. 32:17: "And the work of justice shall be peace." Therefore it is not the effect of charity. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalm., pax multa diligentibus legem tuam. |
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 118:165): "Much peace have they that love Thy Law." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod duplex unio est de ratione pacis, sicut dictum est, quarum una est secundum ordinationem propriorum appetituum in unum; alia vero est secundum unionem appetitus proprii cum appetitu alterius. Et utramque unionem efficit caritas. Primam quidem unionem, secundum quod Deus diligitur ex toto corde, ut scilicet omnia referamus in ipsum, et sic omnes appetitus nostri in unum feruntur. Aliam vero, prout diligimus proximum sicut nosipsos, ex quo contingit quod homo vult implere voluntatem proximi sicut et sui ipsius. Et propter hoc inter amicabilia unum ponitur identitas electionis, ut patet in IX Ethic.; et Tullius dicit, in libro de amicitia, quod amicorum est idem velle et nolle. |
I answer that, Peace implies a twofold union, as stated above (Article [1]). The first is the result of one's own appetites being directed to one object; while the other results from one's own appetite being united with the appetite of another: and each of these unions is effected by charity—the first, in so far as man loves God with his whole heart, by referring all things to Him, so that all his desires tend to one object—the second, in so far as we love our neighbor as ourselves, the result being that we wish to fulfil our neighbor's will as though it were ours: hence it is reckoned a sign of friendship if people "make choice of the same things" (Ethic. ix, 4), and Tully says (De Amicitia) that friends "like and dislike the same things" (Sallust, Catilin.) |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod a gratia gratum faciente nullus deficit nisi propter peccatum, ex quo contingit quod homo sit aversus a fine debito, in aliquo indebito finem constituens. Et secundum hoc appetitus eius non inhaeret principaliter vero finali bono, sed apparenti. Et propter hoc sine gratia gratum faciente non potest esse vera pax, sed solum apparens. | Reply to Objection 1: Without sin no one falls from a state of sanctifying grace, for it turns man away from his due end by making him place his end in something undue: so that his appetite does not cleave chiefly to the true final good, but to some apparent good. Hence, without sanctifying grace, peace is not real but merely apparent. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic., ad amicitiam non pertinet concordia in opinionibus, sed concordia in bonis conferentibus ad vitam, et praecipue in magnis, quia dissentire in aliquibus parvis quasi videtur non esse dissensus. Et propter hoc nihil prohibet aliquos caritatem habentes in opinionibus dissentire. Nec hoc repugnat paci, quia opiniones pertinent ad intellectum, qui praecedit appetitum, qui per pacem unitur. Similiter etiam, existente concordia in principalibus bonis, dissensio in aliquibus parvis non est contra caritatem. Procedit enim talis dissensio ex diversitate opinionum, dum unus aestimat hoc de quo est dissensio pertinere ad illud bonum in quo conveniunt, et alius aestimat non pertinere. Et secundum hoc talis dissensio de minimis et de opinionibus repugnat quidem paci perfectae, in qua plene veritas cognoscetur et omnis appetitus complebitur, non tamen repugnat paci imperfectae, qualis habetur in via. | Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 6) friends need not agree in opinion, but only upon such goods as conduce to life, and especially upon such as are important; because dissension in small matters is scarcely accounted dissension. Hence nothing hinders those who have charity from holding different opinions. Nor is this an obstacle to peace, because opinions concern the intellect, which precedes the appetite that is united by peace. In like manner if there be concord as to goods of importance, dissension with regard to some that are of little account is not contrary to charity: for such a dissension proceeds from a difference of opinion, because one man thinks that the particular good, which is the object of dissension, belongs to the good about which they agree, while the other thinks that it does not. Accordingly such like dissension about very slight matters and about opinions is inconsistent with a state of perfect peace, wherein the truth will be known fully, and every desire fulfilled; but it is not inconsistent with the imperfect peace of the wayfarer. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod pax est opus iustitiae indirecte, inquantum scilicet removet prohibens. Sed est opus caritatis directe, quia secundum propriam rationem caritas pacem causat. Est enim amor vis unitiva, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. pax autem est unio appetitivarum inclinationum. | Reply to Objection 3: Peace is the "work of justice" indirectly, in so far as justice removes the obstacles to peace: but it is the work of charity directly, since charity, according to its very nature, causes peace. For love is "a unitive force" as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): and peace is the union of the appetite's inclinations. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 29 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pax sit virtus. Praecepta enim non dantur nisi de actibus virtutum. Sed dantur praecepta de habendo pacem, ut patet Marc. IX, pacem habete inter vos. Ergo pax est virtus. | Objection 1: It would seem that peace is a virtue. For nothing is a matter of precept, unless it be an act of virtue. But there are precepts about keeping peace, for example: "Have peace among you" (Mk. 9:49). Therefore peace is a virtue. |
| Praeterea, non meremur nisi actibus virtutum. Sed facere pacem est meritorium, secundum illud Matth. V, beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. Ergo pax est virtus. | Objection 2: Further, we do not merit except by acts of virtue. Now it is meritorious to keep peace, according to Mt. 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Therefore peace is a virtue. |
| Praeterea, vitia virtutibus opponuntur. Sed dissensiones, quae opponuntur paci, numerantur inter vitia; ut patet ad Gal. V. Ergo pax est virtus. |
Objection 3: Further, vices are opposed to virtues. But dissensions, which are contrary to peace, are numbered among the vices (Gal. 5:20). Therefore peace is a virtue. |
| Sed contra, virtus non est finis ultimus, sed via in ipsum. Sed pax est quodammodo finis ultimus; ut Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei. Ergo pax non est virtus. | On the contrary, Virtue is not the last end, but the way thereto. But peace is the last end, in a sense, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 11). Therefore peace is not a virtue. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cum omnes actus se invicem consequuntur, secundum eandem rationem ab agente procedentes, omnes huiusmodi actus ab una virtute procedunt, nec habent singuli singulas virtutes a quibus procedant. Ut patet in rebus corporalibus, quia enim ignis calefaciendo liquefacit et rarefacit, non est in igne alia virtus liquefactiva et alia rarefactiva, sed omnes actus hos operatur ignis per unam suam virtutem calefactivam. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [28], Article [4]), when a number of acts all proceeding uniformly from an agent, follow one from the other, they all arise from the same virtue, nor do they each have a virtue from which they proceed, as may be seen in corporeal things. For, though fire by heating, both liquefies and rarefies, there are not two powers in fire, one of liquefaction, the other of rarefaction: and fire produces all such actions by its own power of calefaction. |
| Cum igitur pax causetur ex caritate secundum ipsam rationem dilectionis Dei et proximi, ut ostensum est, non est alia virtus cuius pax sit proprius actus nisi caritas, sicut et de gaudio dictum est. |
Since then charity causes peace precisely because it is love of God and of our neighbor, as shown above (Article [3]), there is no other virtue except charity whose proper act is peace, as we have also said in reference to joy (Question [28], Article [4]). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ideo praeceptum datur de pace habenda, quia est actus caritatis. Et propter hoc etiam est actus meritorius. Et ideo ponitur inter beatitudines, quae sunt actus virtutis perfectae, ut supra dictum est. Ponitur etiam inter fructus, inquantum est quoddam finale bonum spiritualem dulcedinem habens. |
Reply to Objection 1: We are commanded to keep peace because it is an act of charity; and for this reason too it is a meritorious act. Hence it is placed among the beatitudes, which are acts of perfect virtue, as stated above (FS, Question [69], Articles [1],3). It is also numbered among the fruits, in so far as it is a final good, having spiritual sweetness. |
| Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum. | This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod uni virtuti multa vitia opponuntur, secundum diversos actus eius. Et secundum hoc caritati non solum opponitur odium, ratione actus dilectionis; sed etiam acedia vel invidia, ratione gaudii; et dissensio, ratione pacis. | Reply to Objection 3: Several vices are opposed to one virtue in respect of its various acts: so that not only is hatred opposed to charity, in respect of its act which is love, but also sloth and envy, in respect of joy, and dissension in respect of peace. |