Better late than never: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Feast of Corpus Christi

I meant to post this on Sunday or Monday of last week but due to my busy schedule, then having to deal with a medical issue which is still unresolved, I haven't had a chance to post it up til now.

From St. Thomas Aquinas on the Feast of Corpus Christi (Feast of Body and Blood):

O Precious and Wonderful Banquet

"Since it was the will of God's only-begotten Son that men should share in his divinity, he assumed our nature in order that by becoming man he might make men gods. Moreover, when he took our flesh he dedicated the whole of its substance to our salvation. He offered his body to God the Father on the altar of the cross as a sacrifice for our reconciliation. He shed his blood for our ransom and purification, so that we might be redeemed from our wretched state of bondage and cleansed from all sin. But to ensure that the memory of so great a gift would abide with us for ever, he left his body as food and his blood as drink for the faithful to consume in the form of bread and wine.

O precious and wonderful banquet that brings us salvation and contains all sweetness! Could anything be of more intrinsic value? Under the old law it was the flesh of calves and goats that was offered, but here Christ himself, the true God, is set before us as our food. What could be more wonderful than this? No other sacrament has greater healing power; through it sins are purged away, virtues are increased, and the soul is enriched with an abundance of every spiritual gift. It is offered in the Church for the living and the dead, so that what was instituted for the salvation of all may be for the benefit of all. Yet, in the end, no one can fully express the sweetness of this sacrament, in which spiritual delight is tasted at its very source, and in which we renew the memory of that surpassing love for us which Christ revealed in his passion.

It was to impress the vastness of this love more firmly upon the hearts of the faithful that our Lord instituted this sacrament at the Last Supper. As he was on the point of leaving the world to go to the Father, after celebrating the Passover with his disciples, he left it as a perpetual memorial of his passion. It was the fulfillment of ancient figures and the greatest of all his miracles, while for those who were to experience the sorrow of his departure, it was destined to be a unique and abiding consolation."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusculum 57, in festo Corporis Christi, lectures 1-4

H/T AgapeBibleStudy 

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Root of All Sins

St. Thomas Aquinas counters these objections. 

Objection 1. It would seem that covetousness is not the root of all sins. For covetousness, which is immoderate desire for riches, is opposed to the virtue of liberality. But liberality is not the root of all virtues. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins.

Objection 2. Further, the desire for the means proceeds from desire for the end. Now riches, the desire for which is called covetousness, are not desired except as being useful for some end, as stated in Ethic. i, 5. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins, but proceeds from some deeper root.

Objection 3. Further, it often happens that avarice, which is another name for covetousness, arises from other sins; as when a man desires money through ambition, or in order to sate his gluttony. Therefore it is not the root of all sins.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:10): "The desire of money is the root of all evil."

I answer that, According to some, covetousness may be understood in different ways. First, as denoting inordinate desire for richness: and thus it is a special sin. Secondly, as denoting inordinate desire for any temporal good: and thus it is a genus comprising all sins, because every sin includes an inordinate turning to a mutable good, as stated above (Question 72, Article 2). Thirdly, as denoting an inclination of a corrupt nature to desire corruptible goodsinordinately: and they say that in this sense covetousness is the root of all sins, comparing it to the root of a tree, which draws its sustenance from earth, just as every sin grows out of the love of temporal things.

Now, though all this is true, it does not seem to explain the mind of the Apostle when he states that covetousness is the root of all sins. For in that passage he clearly speaks against those who, because they "will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil . . . for covetousness is the root of all evils." Hence it is evident that he is speaking of covetousness as denoting the inordinate desire for riches. Accordingly, we must say that covetousness, as denoting a special sin, is called the root of all sins, in likeness to the root of a tree, in furnishing sustenance to the whole tree. For we see that by riches man acquires the means of committing any sin whatever, and of sating his desire for any sin whatever, since money helps man to obtain all manner of temporal goods, according to Ecclesiastes 10:19: "All things obey money": so that in this desire for riches is the root of all sins.

Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and sin do not arise from the same source. For sin arises from the desire of mutable good; and consequently the desire of that good which helps one to obtain all temporal goods, is called the root of all sins. But virtue arises from the desire for the immutable God; and consequently charity, which is the love of God, is called the root of the virtues, according to Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity."

Reply to Objection 2. The desire of money is said to be the root of sins, not as though riches were sought for their own sake, as being the last end; but because they are much sought after as useful for any temporal end. And since a universal good is more desirable than a particular good, they move the appetite more than any individual goods, which along with many others can be procured by means of money.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as in natural things we do not ask what always happens, but what happens most frequently, for the reason that the nature of corruptible things can be hindered, so as not always to act in the same way; so also in moral matters, we consider what happens in the majority of cases, not what happens invariably, for the reason that the will does not act of necessity. So when we say that covetousness is the root of all evils, we do not assert that no other evil can be its root, but that other evils more frequently arise therefrom, for the reason given.

Fr. Robert Barron Comments on St. Thomas Aquinas

Today is St. Thomas Aquinas' Feast Day.  Enjoy watching the video!

Bishop Olmsted, St. Joseph's Hospital, St. Thomas Aquinas & The Doctrine of Double-effect

This is a continuation of an earlier post in which I discussed Bishop Olmsted, his threat to take away the Catholic hospital's Catholic status if they fail to meet certain criteria which includes being in compliance with Church teaching, and the complicated issues surrounding the health of the mother. USA Today notes that St. Joseph’s Hospital has stated this in defense of authorizing and performing the abortion: 

“St. Joseph's has since argued that the case was more akin to removing a pregnant woman's cancerous uterus, which is permissible under church doctrine, than to a standard abortion.”

As a justification for the hospital authorizing and performing the abortion the hospital is trying to apply the principle of double effect to this case. But, doctrine of double-effect does not apply in this case. In simple as simple terms as possible I am going to explain the principle of double-effect.


First, I would ask you to think about whether this abortion killed the unborn baby directly or indirectly? Was the unborn child dying a consequence of a procedure or medicine?


Thomas Aquinas is one of those philosophers who pretty much covered all the topics. Did you know that the Church got the doctrine of double effect originates with Thomas Aquinas? Yes, indeed the principle of double effect traces all the way back to Aquinas. Aquinas’ treatment of homicidal self-defense is the basis for the Doctrine of double-effect. He uses this principle to defend soldiers at war who kill their enemy. Here is the passage ( IIa-IIae Q. 64, art. 7 ) from the Summa Theologica:

“It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. “

There is a distinction between intent and foresight. This can apply in cases found in military ethics, medical ethics, and social ethics. If the hospital staff had removed a tumor and the unborn baby had unfortunately been affected and died that would fall under the Doctrine of Double-effect since the intention was to remove the cancerous tumor and not to kill the unborn child. A person can have foresight of what the outcome will be as a result of removing the tumor but the intention is NOT to kill the baby but rather is to save the mother’s life by removing the tumor. But, the hospital staff directly killed the unborn child in order to save the mother’s life. This does not fall under the Doctrine of double-effect.


Here are the four conditions which must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:


The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.

The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.

The proportionality condition The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect. [Wkipedia]

Derived from these general principles are the specific criteria for double effect. You will notice there is a great deal of overlap between the above and what follows:


1. The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

2. The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

3. The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm. [Wikipedia]


You can see that abortion, the direct killing of the unborn child, does not, even in the hard case of the mother with pulmonary hypertension, does not meet these criteria and cannot be considered justified according to the principle of double effect. Bishop Olmsted is correct in both his assessment and to ensure that a Catholic hospital adheres to the teachings of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas Quote on Faith

St. Thomas Aquinas -- "Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above"

Faith relies on trust. And, when one let's go and trusts in God then one has faith. These two go hand-in hand.