Summa I-II q.100 a.5: Why These Ten Commandments? Duties to God and to Neighbour, Love of Self, and the Four Causes (C-A-T)

Orientation #

He opens saying “we’re up to question 100, article 5,” and closes by moving to article 6 after a break. He refers back to the sentences (Thomas’s Scriptum) for the three definitions of culpa/sin and for justice toward oneself.

The class, in order #

1. The six objections read out (“making a mess of the Decalogue”) #

He reads all six objections before any reply, enjoying them (“beautiful objections… Thomas is making a mess of the Decalogue”; “How the hell is Thomas going to untie that knot?”).

1. Sin (Ambrose: transgression of divine law, disobedience of celestial commands) is against God, neighbour, or oneself — but the Decalogue has only three toward God and seven toward neighbour, none toward oneself.
2. If the Sabbath is commanded, why not the other solemnities and the rite of sacrifices?
3. Perjury is prohibited (“thou shalt not take the name of God in vain”), but blasphemy and false teaching are worse — why no precept? (Aside: “especially we professors… should have a command to stop them from all the false teaching.”)
4. We naturally love children and grandchildren as we love parents, and the precepts are ordered to charity (1 Tim.: “the end of the command is charity”) — so why a precept about parents and none about children?
5. In theft and adultery both deed and heart are forbidden; why no precept against desiring to kill or to bear false witness?
6. Sin arises from disorder of the irascible as well as the concupiscible; concupiscible disorder is forbidden (“thou shalt not desire thy neighbour’s wife”) — why nothing for the irascible?

Sed contra: Deuteronomy 4:13 — “in ten words, which I wrote on stone tablets.”

Asides attached to objection 6: the newspaper story of the driver who pulled a slow driver from his car and beat him (held dangerous to the community, denied release pending trial); Rosie driving slowly on ice while the impatient man behind slid off into a tree; the reckless French drivers in Quebec and the trucks spinning out on the hill — “you have to be a philosopher to know that you slow down in the winter time.”

2. The body: divine law orders men to a community under God (“a certain community or republic of men under God”) #

The point: Thomas starts from the analogy with human law. As human law orders man to the human community, divine law orders man to a community of men under God. To dwell well in a community two things are required: (1) that one hold oneself well toward the one who presides, (2) that one hold oneself well toward the fellow partakers of the community. Hence first precepts ordering man to God, then precepts ordering man to neighbours living with him under God. He notes Thomas here uses God as King rather than Father (as the Psalms alternate: “The Lord is king in splendour”; “holiness befits thy house”); even the Our Father has “thy kingdom come.” Aside: “Don’t get the cook angry.”

3. The three debts to the prince: fidelity, reverence, service #

He is surprised at the division (“I didn’t know that”).

• Fidelity — the honour of the prince is not given to another: first precept, “thou shalt not have strange gods before me.”
• Reverence — nothing injurious committed against him: second precept, “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
• Service — in recompense for benefits received: third precept, sanctifying the Sabbath in memory of the creation of things.

Examples of honour reserved to the ruler: “Hail to the Chief” played only for the president, and the fixed number of gun salutes (“I probably wouldn’t get even one”). A student recalls Obama’s campaign podium with a seal resembling the presidential one, criticized, then apologized for. And Dr. Schmidt before a graduation explaining the liberal who asked “Why not?” about kissing the bishop’s ring — he is not giving the honour owed to the bishop.

4. To neighbours: the special debt to parents and harm in deed, word, heart #

Toward neighbours one behaves well specially and generally.

• Specially: to those to whom one is a debtor — hence honouring parents. He notes this is the only affirmative precept of the seven, and stands first among them. Cicero is quoted: the son is always in debt to his father (“the mother too, we could add, but you gotta be careful these days”).
• Generally: infer no harm on anyone, neither in deed, nor word, nor heart — matching one of the definitions of sin (a thing desired, said, or done contrary to law).
  • Deed against the person itself: “thou shalt not kill” (“he’s not chopped off his head like they’ve been doing there in the east”; nor an arm either).
  • Deed against the conjoined person, as regards propagation of offspring: “thou shalt not commit adultery.”
  • Deed against the thing possessed: “thou shalt not steal.”
  • Word: “thou shalt not bear false witness.”
  • Heart: “thou shalt not covet” — two precepts of this.

The same threefold difference (work, mouth, heart) divides the first three: work — no graven idol; mouth — not taking God’s name in vain; heart — the Sabbath as moral precept, commanding rest of the heart in God. Aside: the nun delighted that Sunday was set aside “for resting in the Lord.”

5. Augustine’s account of the first three (“we reverence the unity of the first beginning”) #

Cited from Augustine’s sermon on Psalm 32 (sermon 1, n. 6, per his footnote): by the first we reverence the unity of the first beginning; by the second, the divine truth; by the third, his goodness, by which we are made holy and in which we rest as in an end. “That’s really beautiful… even though he’s an African there, from Hippo.”

6. Reply 1: three answers on why nothing orders man to himself #

Thomas gives two (Berquist adds that a third follows).

1. The Decalogue is referred to the precepts of love of God and neighbour, and precepts were needed there because the natural law was obscured by sin on those heads; as regards self-love the natural law remained vigorous.
2. Love of oneself is included in love of God and neighbour: man truly loves himself when he orders himself to God. Berquist’s expansion: what is a bad will? Not merely a will willing something bad — “a bad will is a will whose end or purpose is something other than God”: food, sex, money, power, or self-glorification. A student suggests “a will not in harmony with the order of reason.” Examples: the friend who joined the gourmet society and quit after seeing a member distraught over delicacies not flown in, a man whose end is to eat well; Don Giovanni, whose end is sexual pleasure. So being taught the three precepts toward God is being taught how truly to love oneself. A student recalls Thomas in the sentences: we naturally love ourselves in our affections and desires, but by disorder we in fact hate ourselves, destroying ourselves.
3. The precepts of the Decalogue are those the people received immediately from God (Deut. 10:4, “ten words”), so they must be such as fall at once into the mind of the people — compare how the account of creation leaves some things unsaid because people could not understand. A precept has the note of a debt; that one owes something to God or to neighbour falls easily into conception, especially the faithful man’s; that something is of necessity owed to oneself does not appear at once — at first sight one seems free in what pertains to oneself. Aristotle: there is no justice toward oneself; justice is toward another. Yet “I owe myself a vacation,” “sleep debt” — “you owe your body some sleep.” Therefore precepts prohibiting a man’s disorders toward himself come to the people through the instruction of the wise, not through the Decalogue. He notes answers one and three go together; the second is subtler. Verdict: “we’ll give Thomas a pass on that.”

7. Reply 2: why only the Sabbath among the solemnities #

All solemnities of the old law, and all sacrifices, commemorate some divine benefit past or prefigure one future. Among past benefits the first and chief is creation, commemorated by the Sabbath (Exod. 20:11, the reason attached: in six days God made heaven and earth). Among future benefits the chief and final is the rest of the mind in God, by grace now or by glory hereafter, also figured by the Sabbath (Isaiah 58: “if thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath… and call the Sabbath delightful”). Other solemnities celebrate particular, passing benefits — e.g. the Phase/Passover for the liberation from Egypt and for Christ’s passion, itself transitory but leading into the rest of the spiritual Sabbath. Berquist: the Sabbath takes God as Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, so it has pre-eminence.

Aside: Thomas More, told the king in his mercy had commuted hanging to beheading — “God spare my friends from the king’s mercy.”

8. Reply 3: why perjury and not blasphemy or false teaching #

Men swear by something greater than themselves, and the oath is the end and confirmation of every controversy (the Apostle); because the oath is common to all, its disorder is prohibited by a precept of the Decalogue. False teaching pertains only to the few (“people like me”), so needs no mention. Still, on one reading “thou shalt not take God’s name in vain” does prohibit false doctrines — a gloss: one should not say Christ to be a creature. Berquist checks this against the body: it harmonizes with Augustine’s assignment of divine truth to the second precept (his footnote here refers to Isidore, not Augustine). Teaching false things about God’s nature is taking his name in vain.

Digression on the atheist who argues the designer would need “one hell of a good brain” — so who designed the designer? That itself takes God’s name in vain, imagining God anthropomorphically; a student adds, “he is insulting God because he does not use his own brain.” A student asks whether atheism rests on indeterminism/randomness or something more sophisticated; answer: they are basically materialists — “if they’re anything more than materialists, they’re going to be walking towards God.” Asked about eternal matter versus the Big Bang: “even the Big Bang, you’re starting with something.”

This leads to the CAT / ACT / TAC teaching of the four causes: what the word CAT most obviously depends on is the letters C, A, T (matter — remove them and the word is gone); ACT shows the same letters in another order, so it also depends on order (form); the same letters get into a different order through Berquist, the writer and mover (agent); and why CAT rather than ACT is settled by purpose — talking about his favourite animal, versus teaching metaphysics (act and ability), versus Thomas Aquinas College, TAC (end). Parallel: a wooden chair and wooden table both depend on wood, and differ by shape. The moral: the moderns, like the early Greeks, are stuck with the most known cause, matter, and try to explain everything by it. Aside: Marx’s introduction to his thesis shows a pride that will accept nothing not making our mind the highest divinity.

9. Reply 4: no precept about loving one’s children #

Natural reason at once dictates that one do injury to nobody, so precepts prohibiting harm extend to all; but it does not at once dictate that something positive be done for another, except where a man owes it. The son’s debt to the father is so manifest that no twisting can deny it: the father is the beginning of the son’s generation and being, and beyond that of his education and teaching. So the only precept of benefit or service is toward parents. Parents, conversely, are not debtors to their sons; rather the reverse — the son is something of the father, and fathers love their sons as something of themselves (Ethics VIII). Hence no precept about love of sons, just as none ordering man to himself.

Shakespeare quoted: “This were to be new made when thou art old… For thou art thy mother’s glass, and she in thee calls back the lovely April of her prime.” Berquist’s own point: husband and wife are more “two in one flesh” in their child than in the marriage act, which is transitory — even divorce cannot take back that flesh. Examples that even villains love their children: Aaron in the early Shakespeare play; Children of Monsters, on the children of Stalin and other tyrants, some continuing their fathers’ work (North Korea, Assad), some turning against them; Castro’s daughter who came to the United States and wrote of the police state; a student’s account of the Pope giving Fidel recordings of a priest who had taught him, the priest now old in Miami, willing to hear his confession but requiring public penance since his sins are not private; the mafia as family, and the CFR friar born into a mafia family who converted; the Italian restaurant owner in Worcester, Rosalyn’s former sixth-grade student, whom she worried would be led astray by the family. Also the abbot at an ordination: “I see about your better half” — the wife is spoken of as oneself, “flesh of my flesh.” Joke offered: “you should know the difference between in-laws and outlaws — outlaws are wanted.”

10. Reply 5: why the heart is forbidden only in adultery and theft #

The pleasure of adultery and the usefulness of wealth are desirable on account of themselves, as having the note of a delightful or useful good; therefore in them not only the deed but the concupiscence must be prohibited. Murder and false witness are in themselves horrible, since one’s neighbour and truth are naturally loved, and are not desired except on account of something else (e.g. wanting your position). Hence for homicide and false testimony only the deed is prohibited, not the sin of the heart. High-school aside on money: “what it isn’t, it’ll buy.” A student quotes Augustine: everyone naturally loves the truth — if a man doubts whether he loves truth, ask him whether he likes to be deceived.

11. Reply 6: the irascible derives from the concupiscible #

All the passions of the irascible are derived from the passions of the concupiscible; the precepts of the Decalogue are certain prima, first elements of the law — not all its elements — so mention is made only of the passions from which the irascible arise. Berquist: Thomas always notes that animals fight over food and sex; the irascible is the defender of the concupiscible, or helps it get what it wants. Road rage returns as the example. A student remarks that “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance echoes Thomas’s community of men living under God. He then announces article 6 and a break.

His words #

• culpa — sin as fault; “three definitions of sin” from the sentences, one being a thing desired, said, or done contrary to law.
• “community or republic of men under God” — his rendering of the divine law’s end.
• Fidelity / reverence / service — the three things man owes the prince.
• consociosa/“partakers of the community” — fellow members under the ruler.
• “affirmative precept” — the honour of parents, the only one among the seven.
• “ability” [ed.: potency] — as in “act and ability,” his metaphysics example for ACT.
• propter seipsa petibilia — “desirable on account of themselves,” of adultery’s pleasure and wealth’s usefulness.
• prima — “first elements of the law,” what the Decalogue’s precepts are.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 100, a. 5 — objections, sed contra, body, replies 1–6.
• Deuteronomy 4:13; Deuteronomy 10:4 — “ten words.”
• Exodus 20:11; Isaiah 58 (on the Sabbath).
• 1 Timothy — “the end of the command is charity.”

Mentioned

• Ambrose, definition of sin.
• Augustine, sermon on Psalm 32, sermon 1, n. 6 (per his footnote); Isidore (footnote to the second-precept harmonization); Augustine on loving the truth (quoted by a student).
• Cicero — the son always in debt to his father.
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII — fathers love sons as something of themselves; also “no justice toward oneself.”
• Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum on the Sentences — definitions of sin; justice toward oneself.
• Shakespeare, sonnet lines “thy mother’s glass…”; the villain Aaron.
• Children of Monsters (reviewed in National Review); Marx’s thesis introduction.

His questions #

• How is Thomas going to untie that knot — the Decalogue has nothing ordering man to himself? Three ways: self-love’s natural law was not obscured; self-love is included in loving God; and a debt to oneself does not at once fall into the people’s mind, so it is left to the wise.
• Why is only the Sabbath kept among all the solemnities and sacrifices? Because it commemorates the chief past benefit, creation, and prefigures the chief future one, rest in God.
• Why a precept against perjury and none against blasphemy or false teaching? The oath is common to all; false teaching pertains only to the few — and false doctrine is in a way covered by “in vain.”
• What is a bad will? A will whose end or purpose is something other than God.
• Why a precept about parents and none about children? Because the son’s debt to the father cannot be denied, while the son is something of the father and is loved naturally, as oneself.
• Why forbid the desire of the wife and goods, but not the desire to kill or lie? Because adultery’s pleasure and wealth are desirable for themselves; murder and false witness are horrible in themselves and desired only for something else.
• Why nothing in the Decalogue about the irascible? Because the irascible passions derive from the concupiscible, and the Decalogue gives only the first elements of the law.
• What is the most obvious dependence of the word CAT written on the board? The letters C, A, T — the cause called matter; ACT then forces order (form), the writer (agent) and the purpose (end).