Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the other six precepts of the decalogue are unfittingly expressed. For it is not sufficient for salvation that one refrain from injuring one's neighbor; but it is required that one pay one's debts, according to Rm. 13:7, "Render . . . to all men their dues." Now the last six precepts merely forbid one to injure one's neighbor. Therefore these precepts are unfittingly expressed.

Objection 2: Further, these precepts forbid murder, adultery, stealing and bearing false witness. But many other injuries can be inflicted on one's neighbor, as appears from those which have been specified above (Questions 72, seq.). Therefore it seems that the aforesaid precepts are unfittingly expressed.

Objection 3: Further, concupiscence may be taken in two ways. First as denoting an act of the will, as in Wis. 6:21, "The desire of wisdom bringeth to the everlasting kingdom": secondly, as denoting an act of the sensuality, as in James 4:1, "From whence are wars and contentions among you? Are they not . . . from your concupiscences which war in your members?" Now the concupiscence of the sensuality is not forbidden by a precept of the decalogue, otherwise first movements would be mortal sins, as they would be against a precept of the decalogue. Nor is the concupiscence of the will forbidden, since it is included in every sin. Therefore it is unfitting for the precepts of the decalogue to include some that forbid concupiscence.

Objection 4: Further, murder is a more grievous sin than adultery or theft. But there is no precept forbidding the desire of murder. Therefore neither was it fitting to have precepts forbidding the desire of theft and of adultery.

On the contrary, stands the authority of Scripture.

I answer that, Just as by the parts of justice a man pays that which is due to certain definite persons, to whom he is bound for some special reason, so too by justice properly so called he pays that which is due to all in general. Hence, after the three precepts pertaining to religion, whereby man pays what is due God, and after the fourth precept pertaining to piety, whereby he pays what is due to his parents---which duty includes the paying of all that is due for any special reason---it was necessary in due sequence to give certain precepts pertaining to justice properly so called, which pays to all indifferently what is due to them.

Reply to Objection 1: Man is bound towards all persons in general to inflict injury on no one: hence the negative precepts, which forbid the doing of those injuries that can be inflicted on one's neighbor, had to be given a place, as general precepts, among the precepts of the decalogue. On the other hand, the duties we owe to our neighbor are paid in different ways to different people: hence it did not behoove to include affirmative precepts about those duties among the precepts of the decalogue.

Reply to Objection 2: All other injuries that are inflicted on our neighbor are reducible to those that are forbidden by these precepts, as taking precedence of others in point of generality and importance. For all injuries that are inflicted on the person of our neighbor are understood to be forbidden under the head of murder as being the principal of all. Those that are inflicted on a person connected with one's neighbor, especially by way of lust, are understood to be forbidden together with adultery: those that come under the head of damage done to property are understood to be forbidden together with theft: and those that are comprised under speech, such as detractions, insults, and so forth, are understood to be forbidden together with the bearing of false witness, which is more directly opposed to justice.

Reply to Objection 3: The precepts forbidding concupiscence do not include the prohibition of first movements of concupiscence, that do not go farther than the bounds of sensuality. The direct object of their prohibition is the consent of the will, which is directed to deed or pleasure.

Reply to Objection 4: Murder in itself is an object not of concupiscence but of horror, since it has not in itself the aspect of good. On the other hand, adultery has the aspect of a certain kind of good, i.e. of something pleasurable, and theft has an aspect of good, i.e. of something useful: and good of its very nature has the aspect of something concupiscible. Hence the concupiscence of theft and adultery had to be forbidden by special precepts, but not the concupiscence of murder.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod alia sex praecepta Decalogi inconvenienter tradantur. Non enim sufficit ad salutem quod aliquis proximo suo non noceat, sed requiritur quod ei debitum reddat, secundum illud Rom. XIII, reddite omnibus debita.

Sed in sex ultimis praeceptis solum prohibetur nocumentum proximo inferendum. Ergo inconvenienter praedicta praecepta traduntur.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, in praedictis praeceptis prohibentur homicidium, adulterium, furtum et falsum testimonium.

Sed multa alia nocumenta possunt proximo inferri, ut patet ex his quae supra determinata sunt.

Ergo videtur quod inconvenienter sint tradita huiusmodi praecepta.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, concupiscentia dupliciter accipi potest, uno modo, secundum quod est actus voluntatis, ut dicitur Sap. VI, concupiscentia sapientiae perducit ad regnum perpetuum; alio modo, secundum quod est actus sensualitatis, sicut dicitur Iac. IV, unde bella et lites in vobis? nonne ex concupiscentiis quae militant in membris vestris? sed per praeceptum Decalogi non prohibetur concupiscentia sensualitatis, quia secundum hoc, primi motus essent peccata mortalia, utpote contra praeceptum Decalogi existentes. Similiter etiam non prohibetur concupiscentia voluntatis, quia haec includitur in quolibet peccato. Inconvenienter ergo inter praecepta Decalogi ponuntur quaedam concupiscentiae prohibitiva.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, homicidium est gravius peccatum quam adulterium vel furtum. Sed non ponitur aliquod praeceptum prohibitivum concupiscentiae homicidii. Ergo etiam inconvenienter ponuntur quaedam praecepta prohibitiva concupiscentiae furti et adulterii.

Sed Contra

Sed in contrarium est auctoritas Scripturae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod sicut per partes iustitiae debitum redditur aliquibus determinatis personis quibus homo ex aliqua speciali ratione obligatur, ita etiam per iustitiam proprie dictam aliquis debitum reddit communiter omnibus. Et ideo post tria praecepta pertinentia ad religionem, qua redditur debitum deo et post quartum praeceptum, quod est pietatis, qua redditur parentibus debitum, in quo includitur omne debitum quod ex aliqua speciali ratione debetur; necesse fuit quod ponerentur consequenter alia praecepta pertinentia ad iustitiam proprie dictam, quae indifferenter omnibus debitum reddit.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod communiter ad hoc obligatur homo ut nulli inferat nocumentum. Et ideo praecepta negativa, quibus prohibentur nocumenta quae possunt proximis inferri, tanquam communia, fuerunt ponenda inter praecepta Decalogi. Ea vero quae sunt proximis exhibenda, diversimode exhibentur diversis. Et ideo non fuerunt inter praecepta Decalogi ponenda de his affirmativa praecepta.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod omnia alia nocumenta quae proximis inferuntur, possunt ad ista reduci quae his praeceptis prohibentur tanquam ad quaedam communiora et principaliora. Nam omnia nocumenta quae in personam proximi inferuntur, intelliguntur prohiberi in homicidio, sicut in principaliori. Quae vero inferuntur in personam coniunctam, et maxime per modum libidinis, intelliguntur prohiberi simul cum adulterio. Quae vero pertinent ad damna in rebus illata, intelliguntur prohiberi simul cum furto. Quae autem pertinet ad locutionem, sicut detractiones, blasphemiae, et si qua huiusmodi, intelliguntur prohiberi falso testimonio, quod directius iustitiae contrariatur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod per praecepta prohibitiva concupiscentiae non intelligitur prohiberi primus motus concupiscentiae, qui sistit infra limites sensualitatis. Sed prohibetur directe consensus voluntatis qui est in opus vel in delectationem.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod homicidium secundum se non est concupiscibile, sed magis horribile, quia non habet de se rationem alicuius boni. Sed adulterium habet aliquam rationem boni, scilicet delectabilis. Furtum etiam habet rationem alicuius boni, scilicet utilis. Bonum autem de se habet rationem concupiscibilis.

Et ideo fuit specialibus praeceptis prohibenda concupiscentia furti et adulterii, non autem concupiscentia homicidii.