ARTICLE IX

In the Ninth Article We Ask: WAS THE PASSION OF PAIN IN THE SOUL OF CHRIST AS REGARDS HIGHER REASON?

Difficulties:

It seems that it was not, for

1. A man is said to be disturbed and to be led by passion when the turmoil of passion reaches all the way to reason. Now it is not the part of a wise man to be disturbed and led by passion. Therefore, since Christ was most wise, it seems that in His case pain did not reach all the way to higher reason.

2. Every power is said to get pleasure as a result of the appropriateness of its proper object. Pain should therefore not be attributed to any power except by reason of harm which comes from its object. But in regard to eternal things, which are the objects of higher reason, Christ did not suffer any defect or encumberment. The passion of pain was therefore not in Christ's higher reason.

3. According to Augustine pain is one of the bodily passions. It therefore does not apply to the soul except in so far as it is joined to the body. But as regards higher reason the soul is not joined to the body, since according to the Philosopher the intellect is not the act of any body. Pain therefore cannot be in higher reason.

4. It was said in answer that higher reason is not joined to the body by its operation, but it is joined to it as its form.--On the contrary, according to the Philosopher "power and action belong to the same subject." Consequently, if the action of the intellect belongs to the soul without any participation in it by the body, the intellective power also will belong to the soul independently of its union with the body; and so higher reason will not be joined to the body as its form.

5. According to Damascene passion is a movement of the irrational and appetitive soul. But pain and sadness and the like are passions. They were therefore not in the realm of higher reason in Christ.

6. According to Augustine pain or sadness is among the things which happen to us against our will. But Christ willed His bodily passion in His higher reason, and nothing happened to Him against His will, which was most perfectly conformed to the divine will. Sadness or pain was therefore not in Christ as regards His higher reason.

7. It was said that His higher reason as reason willed the passion of His body, but not as a nature.--On the contrary, reason is the same power considered as reason or as a nature, for a different way of looking at it does not differentiate the substance of the thing. Now if higher reason as reason willed anything and as a nature did not will it, the same power at one and the same time willed something and did not will it. But that is impossible.

8. According to the Philosopher there is no sadness contrary to the pleasure which is taken in contemplation. But higher reason finds its pleasure in contemplating eternal truths. Consequently there cannot be any pain or sadness in it, for this sadness or pain would be opposed to the pleasure of contemplation. Thus there was no passion of pain or sadness in Christ's soul as regards higher reason.

To the Contrary:

1'. It is written in the Psalm (87:4): "My soul is filled with evils," which is interpreted in the Gloss: "Not with vices but with pains." Pain was accordingly in every part of Christ's soul, and therefore in higher reason.

2'. Atonement corresponds to the fault. But by His passion Christ atoned for the fault of the first man. Now since that fault reached as far as higher reason, the passion of Christ must also have reached to higher reason.

3'. As the Gloss says in comment upon the words "My soul is filled with evils" (Psalm 87:4), in feeling pain the soul suffers together with the body to which it is united. But reason as reason implies a reference to the body. This appears from the fact that we do not speak of reason but of intellect in the angels, who do not have a body naturally united to them; whereas we do speak of reason in souls united to bodies. Therefore the pain of Christ's passion was in higher reason inasmuch as it is reason.

4'. According to Augustine "the whole soul is in the whole body." Every part of it, then, is united to the body. But higher reason as reason is a part of the soul. It is therefore united to the body, and so suffers pain along with the suffering body.

REPLY:

As is evident from what was said above, there are two kinds of passion by which the soul suffers indirectly, one bodily, which begins with the body and ends in the soul as united to the body, the other psychical, which is caused by the soul's apprehending something by which the appetite is moved, with a resultant bodily alteration.

If we are speaking of the first kind of passion, to which pain belongs according to Augustine, then it must be said that the pain of Christ's passion was in some sense in higher reason and in some sense not. For there are two elements in pain: an injury, and the experiential perception of that injury. The injury is principally in the body, but resultantly in the soul as united to the body. Now the soul is united to the body by its essence, and in the essence of the soul all its powers are rooted. In this respect, then, that injury in Christ had reference to the soul and to all its parts, even to higher reason in so far as it is grounded in the essence of the soul. The experiential perception of the injury, however, has reference only to the sense of touch, as was said above.

If, on the other hand, we are speaking of psychical passion, sadness, which is properly a passion of this kind, can be only in that part of the soul whose object, when apprehended and appetitively attained, begets sadness. Now in Christ's soul no reason for sadness could derive from the object of higher reason, that is, from the eternal verities of which He was in perfect possession. Consequently psychical sadness could not have been in the higher reason of Christ's soul.

In Christ, therefore, higher reason suffered with bodily pain in so far as this power is rooted in the essence of the soul, but it did not suffer with psychical sadness in so far as by its proper act it was directed to the contemplation of eternal truths.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. A man is disturbed and led by passion when reason in its own operation follows the inclination of passion by consenting and choosing. Bodily pain, however, reached the higher reason of Christ's soul, not by changing its proper operation, but only in so far as it is rooted in the essence, as has been said.* Thus the conclusion does not follow.

2. Although pain was not in the higher reason of Christ's soul with relation to its proper object, it was in it nevertheless as referred to its proper root, which is the essence of the soul.

3. A power can be the act of the body in two ways: (1) Inasmuch as it is a power; and thus it is said to be the act of the body as informing some bodily organ in order to carry out its own act. The visual power, for example, perfects the eye in order to carry out the act of seeing. In this sense the intellect is not the act of the body. (2) By reason of the essence in which it is grounded. In this sense the intellect as well as the other powers are joined to the body as its form inasmuch as they are in the soul which by its essence is the form of the body.

4. That difficulty is speaking of a power under the aspect of its being a power, not under that of its being rooted in the essence of the soul.

5. Damascene is speaking of psychical passion, which is in the sense appetitive power as its proper subject, but in the apprehensive power causally, so to speak, inasmuch as the movement of passion arises in the appetitive from the apprehended object. There are, however, in the higher appetite certain operations similar to the passions of the lower appetite, and by reason of this similarity the names of the passions are sometimes attributed to the angels or to God, as Augustine says. In this way too sadness is sometimes said to be in higher reason as regards the apprehensive and the appetitive powers. We do not, however, say that pain was in the higher reason of Christ's soul in this way, but in so far as it is rooted in the essence of the soul, as has been said.*

6. This difficulty proves that pain was not in higher reason as referred to its object through its own operation. In that sense nothing occurs against its will.

7. The distinction made between reason as reason and reason as a nature can be understood in two ways:

(1) In such a way that "reason as a nature" is used to mean reason in so far as it is the nature of a rational creature, that is, as being grounded in the essence of the soul and giving natural existence to the body; and "reason as reason" is spoken of from the point of view of the distinguishing characteristic of reason inasmuch as it is reason; and that is its act, since powers are defined by their acts. Because, then, pain is not in higher reason as referred to its object on the basis of its proper act but as rooted in the essence of the soul, it is said for this reason that higher reason suffered pain as a nature, not as reason.

It is like the case of sight, which is founded on the sense of touch inasmuch as the organ of sight is also an organ of touch. Sight can accordingly suffer an injury in two different ways: through its proper act, as when sight is blurred by too strong a light, in which case this is a passion of sight as sight; or again as founded upon the sense of touch, as when the eye is punctured or dissolved by heat, in which case the passion is one of sight not as sight but as a sort of sense of touch.

(2) The distinction mentioned can be understood in such a way that we use "reason as a nature" to mean reason as referred to the things which it naturally knows and tends to, and "reason as reason" to mean reason as directed to an object of knowledge or desire by means of a comparison, since it is the proper function of reason to compare. For there are certain things which are to be shunned when considered in themselves, but are sought because of their relation to something else. Thus hunger and thirst considered in themselves are to be shunned, but to the extent that they are considered useful for the health of the soul or body they are sought. Reason as reason accordingly takes pleasure in them, whereas reason as nature is saddened by them. So too the bodily passion of Christ considered in itself was something to be shunned, and reason as nature was as a consequence saddened by it and did not want it. But from the point of view of its being destined for the salvation of the human race it was something good and desirable, and so reason as reason willed it and then rejoiced in it.

This cannot be referred to higher reason, however, but only to lower reason, which directs its attention to the things of the body as its proper object. Hence it can be directed to bodily passions both absolutely and comparatively. But higher reason is not concerned with the things of the body as its objects, for it is directed in this way only to eternal things. It does, however, look at corporeal things to judge them in the light of eternal standards, to which it directs its gaze not only to look upon them but also to consult them. In Christ, accordingly, higher reason did not look at the passion of His body except with reference to the eternal standards, and in the light of them it rejoiced in the passion as pleasing to God. Hence sadness or pain by no means occurred in higher reason in virtue of its proper operation.

Now it is not out of keeping for one and the same power to will in relation to something else the same thing that it does not will in itself, for it is possible for something which is not good in itself to take on a certain goodness from its relation to something else. This did not take place, however, in higher reason in Christ with regard to the passion of His body; for it is not directed to such a passion except as willed [by God], as is apparent from what has just been said.

8. Contemplation can cause pleasure in two different ways: (1) From the standpoint of the operation, that is, contemplating. In this sense there is no sadness contrary to the pleasure which is taken in contemplating, because opposed to this contemplation which is the cause of pleasure there is no contrary contemplation which would be the cause of sadness; for all contemplation is pleasurable. This is not the case, however, on the part of sense, because from the point of view of its operation sense can be both saddened and pained; for example, we take pleasure in touching something suited to the sense, but we experience pain from touching something harmful. (2) Contemplation causes pleasure from the standpoint of the thing contemplated; that is, according as the object is considered as good or as evil. Thus either pleasure or contrary sadness can arise from contemplation; for even failure to understand causes sadness when considered as an evil, though in itself it does not cause anything but the negation of pleasure. Nevertheless it is not in this way that we say that pain was in the higher reason of Christ's soul, but as being rooted in the essence of the soul.

Answers to Contrary Difficulties:

1'. The Gloss does not say that the soul of Christ was filled with sadness but that it was filled with pains in the sense that it was suffering along with the body. It is accordingly not necessary for the suffering of pain to be ascribed to higher reason except in so far as it is in the essence of the soul; for in that way it is united to the body.

2'. Christ's passion would not have atoned except in so far as it was undertaken voluntarily and from charity. It is accordingly not necessary that, just because the fault was in Adam through the operation of higher reason, pain be in the higher part of Christ's reason as regards its proper operation; for the sufferer's movement of charity, which is in the higher part of reason, corresponds for the purpose of atonement to whatever was in the fault from higher reason.

3'. In reason there are two aspects to be kept in mind: a certain participation in the power of understanding, and also the clouding or defectiveness of understanding. The defectiveness of the power of understanding is a consequence of the soul's ordination to union with a body, but the power of understanding is in the soul inasmuch as it is not immersed in the body like other material forms. Consequently, since the operation of reason is in the soul as participating in the power of understanding, such an operation is not exercised by means of the body.

4'. "Reason as reason" does not designate a power distinct from "reason as a nature," but it designates a way of looking at that power. Now even though, in one way of looking at it, suffering does not apply to some particular power of the soul, that does not prevent the whole soul from suffering.