Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 148

Now all these come under the head of the superst.i.tion of idolatry.

Wherefore Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20): "Anything invented by man for making and wors.h.i.+pping idols, or for giving Divine wors.h.i.+p to a creature or any part of a creature, is superst.i.tious."

Reply Obj. 1: Just as religion is not faith, but a confession of faith by outward signs, so superst.i.tion is a confession of unbelief by external wors.h.i.+p. Such a confession is signified by the term idolatry, but not by the term heresy, which only means a false opinion. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, but idolatry is a species of superst.i.tion.

Reply Obj. 2: The term latria may be taken in two senses. In one sense it may denote a human act pertaining to the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d: and then its signification remains the same, to whomsoever it be shown, because, in this sense, the thing to which it is shown is not included in its definition. Taken thus latria is applied univocally, whether to true religion or to idolatry, just as the payment of a tax is univocally the same, whether it is paid to the true or to a false king. In another sense latria denotes the same as religion, and then, since it is a virtue, it is essential thereto that divine wors.h.i.+p be given to whom it ought to be given; and in this way latria is applied equivocally to the latria of true religion, and to idolatry: just as prudence is applied equivocally to the prudence that is a virtue, and to that which is carnal.

Reply Obj. 3: The saying of the Apostle that "an idol is nothing in the world" means that those images which were called idols, were not animated, or possessed of a divine power, as Hermes maintained, as though they were composed of spirit and body. In the same sense we must understand the saying that "what is offered in sacrifice to idols is not anything," because by being thus sacrificed the sacrificial flesh acquired neither sanctification, as the Gentiles thought, nor uncleanness, as the Jews held.

Reply Obj. 4: It was owing to the general custom among the Gentiles of wors.h.i.+pping any kind of creature under the form of images that the term "idolatry" was used to signify any wors.h.i.+p of a creature, even without the use of images.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 94, Art. 2]

Whether Idolatry Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that idolatry is not a sin. Nothing is a sin that the true faith employs in wors.h.i.+pping G.o.d. Now the true faith employs images for the divine wors.h.i.+p: since both in the Tabernacle were there images of the cherubim, as related in Ex. 25, and in the Church are images set up which the faithful wors.h.i.+p.

Therefore idolatry, whereby idols are wors.h.i.+pped, is not a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, reverence should be paid to every superior. But the angels and the souls of the blessed are our superiors. Therefore it will be no sin to pay them reverence by wors.h.i.+p, of sacrifices or the like.

Obj. 3: Further, the most high G.o.d should be honored with an inward wors.h.i.+p, according to John 4:24, "G.o.d ... they must adore ... in spirit and in truth": and Augustine says (Enchiridion iii), that "G.o.d is wors.h.i.+pped by faith, hope and charity." Now a man may happen to wors.h.i.+p idols outwardly, and yet not wander from the true faith inwardly. Therefore it seems that we may wors.h.i.+p idols outwardly without prejudice to the divine wors.h.i.+p.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ex. 20:5): "Thou shalt not adore them," i.e. outwardly, "nor serve them," i.e. inwardly, as a gloss explains it: and it is a question of graven things and images.

Therefore it is a sin to wors.h.i.+p idols whether outwardly or inwardly.

_I answer that,_ There has been a twofold error in this matter. For some [*The School of Plato] have thought that to offer sacrifices and other things pertaining to latria, not only to G.o.d but also to the others aforesaid, is due and good in itself, since they held that divine honor should be paid to every superior nature, as being nearer to G.o.d. But this is unreasonable. For though we ought to revere all superiors, yet the same reverence is not due to them all: and something special is due to the most high G.o.d Who excels all in a singular manner: and this is the wors.h.i.+p of latria.

Nor can it be said, as some have maintained, that "these visible sacrifices are fitting with regard to other G.o.ds, and that to the most high G.o.d, as being better than those others, better sacrifices, namely, the service of a pure mind, should be offered" [*Augustine, as quoted below]. The reason is that, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 19), "external sacrifices are signs of internal, just as audible words are signs of things. Wherefore, just as by prayer and praise we utter significant words to Him, and offer to Him in our hearts the things they signify, so too in our sacrifices we ought to realize that we should offer a visible sacrifice to no other than to Him Whose invisible sacrifice we ourselves should be in our hearts."

Others held that the outward wors.h.i.+p of latria should be given to idols, not as though it were something good or fitting in itself, but as being in harmony with the general custom. Thus Augustine (De Civ.

Dei vi, 10) quotes Seneca as saying: "We shall adore," says he, "in such a way as to remember that our wors.h.i.+p is in accordance with custom rather than with the reality": and (De Vera Relig. v) Augustine says that "we must not seek religion from the philosophers, who accepted the same things for sacred, as did the people; and gave utterance in the schools to various and contrary opinions about the nature of their G.o.ds, and the sovereign good." This error was embraced also by certain heretics [*The Helcesaitae], who affirmed that it is not wrong for one who is seized in time of persecution to wors.h.i.+p idols outwardly so long as he keeps the faith in his heart.

But this is evidently false. For since outward wors.h.i.+p is a sign of the inward wors.h.i.+p, just as it is a wicked lie to affirm the contrary of what one holds inwardly of the true faith so too is it a wicked falsehood to pay outward wors.h.i.+p to anything counter to the sentiments of one's heart. Wherefore Augustine condemns Seneca (De Civ. Dei vi, 10) in that "his wors.h.i.+p of idols was so much the more infamous forasmuch as the things he did dishonestly were so done by him that the people believed him to act honestly."

Reply Obj. 1: Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the wors.h.i.+p of latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be impressed and confirmed in the mind of man. It is different with the image of Christ, to which latria is due on account of His Divinity, as we shall state in the Third Part (Q. 25, A. 3).

The Replies to the Second and Third Objections are evident from what has been said above.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 94, Art. 3]

Whether Idolatry Is the Gravest of Sins?

Objection 1: It would seem that idolatry is not the gravest of sins.

The worst is opposed to the best (Ethic. viii, 10). But interior wors.h.i.+p, which consists of faith, hope and charity, is better than external wors.h.i.+p. Therefore unbelief, despair and hatred of G.o.d, which are opposed to internal wors.h.i.+p, are graver sins than idolatry, which is opposed to external wors.h.i.+p.

Obj. 2: Further, the more a sin is against G.o.d the more grievous it is. Now, seemingly, a man acts more directly against G.o.d by blaspheming, or denying the faith, than by giving G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p to another, which pertains to idolatry. Therefore blasphemy and denial of the faith are more grievous sins than idolatry.

Obj. 3: Further, it seems that lesser evils are punished with greater evils. But the sin of idolatry was punished with the sin against nature, as stated in Rom. 1:26. Therefore the sin against nature is a graver sin than idolatry.

Obj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xx, 5): "Neither do we say that you," viz. the Manichees, "are pagans, or a sect of pagans, but that you bear a certain likeness to them since you wors.h.i.+p many G.o.ds: and yet you are much worse than they are, for they wors.h.i.+p things that exist, but should not be wors.h.i.+ped as G.o.ds, whereas you wors.h.i.+p things that exist not at all." Therefore the vice of heretical depravity is more grievous than idolatry.

Obj. 5: Further, a gloss of Jerome on Gal. 4:9, "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements?" says: "The observance of the Law, to which they were then addicted, was a sin almost equal to the wors.h.i.+p of idols, to which they had been given before their conversion."

Therefore idolatry is not the most grievous sin.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on the saying of Lev. 15:25, about the uncleanness of a woman suffering from an issue of blood, says: "Every sin is an uncleanness of the soul, but especially idolatry."

_I answer that,_ The gravity of a sin may be considered in two ways.

First, on the part of the sin itself, and thus idolatry is the most grievous sin. For just as the most heinous crime in an earthly commonwealth would seem to be for a man to give royal honor to another than the true king, since, so far as he is concerned, he disturbs the whole order of the commonwealth, so, in sins that are committed against G.o.d, which indeed are the greater sins, the greatest of all seems to be for a man to give G.o.d's honor to a creature, since, so far as he is concerned, he sets up another G.o.d in the world, and lessens the divine sovereignty. Secondly, the gravity of a sin may be considered on the part of the sinner. Thus the sin of one that sins knowingly is said to be graver than the sin of one that sins through ignorance: and in this way nothing hinders heretics, if they knowingly corrupt the faith which they have received, from sinning more grievously than idolaters who sin through ignorance.

Furthermore other sins may be more grievous on account of greater contempt on the part of the sinner.

Reply Obj. 1: Idolatry presupposes internal unbelief, and to this it adds undue wors.h.i.+p. But in a case of external idolatry without internal unbelief, there is an additional sin of falsehood, as stated above (A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: Idolatry includes a grievous blasphemy, inasmuch as it deprives G.o.d of the singleness of His dominion and denies the faith by deeds.

Reply Obj. 3: Since it is essential to punishment that it be against the will, a sin whereby another sin is punished needs to be more manifest, in order that it may make the man more hateful to himself and to others; but it need not be a more grievous sin: and in this way the sin against nature is less grievous than the sin of idolatry.

But since it is more manifest, it is a.s.signed as a fitting punishment of the sin of idolatry, in order that, as by idolatry man abuses the order of the divine honor, so by the sin against nature he may suffer confusion from the abuse of his own nature.

Reply Obj. 4: Even as to the genus of the sin, the Manichean heresy is more grievous than the sin of other idolaters, because it is more derogatory to the divine honor, since they set up two G.o.ds in opposition to one another, and hold many vain and fabulous fancies about G.o.d. It is different with other heretics, who confess their belief in one G.o.d and wors.h.i.+p Him alone.

Reply Obj. 5: The observance of the Law during the time of grace is not quite equal to idolatry as to the genus of the sin, but almost equal, because both are species of pestiferous superst.i.tion.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 94, Art. 4]

Whether the Cause of Idolatry Was on the Part of Man?

Objection 1: It would seem that the cause of idolatry was not on the part of man. In man there is nothing but either nature, virtue, or guilt. But the cause of idolatry could not be on the part of man's nature, since rather does man's natural reason dictate that there is one G.o.d, and that divine wors.h.i.+p should not be paid to the dead or to inanimate beings. Likewise, neither could idolatry have its cause in man on the part of virtue, since "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," according to Matt. 7:18: nor again could it be on the part of guilt, because, according to Wis. 14:27, "the wors.h.i.+p of abominable idols is the cause and the beginning and end of all evil." Therefore idolatry has no cause on the part of man.

Obj. 2: Further, those things which have a cause in man are found among men at all times. Now idolatry was not always, but is stated [*Peter Comestor, Hist. Genes. x.x.xvii, xl] to have been originated either by Nimrod, who is related to have forced men to wors.h.i.+p fire, or by Ninus, who caused the statue of his father Bel to be wors.h.i.+ped.

Among the Greeks, as related by Isidore (Etym. viii, 11), Prometheus was the first to set up statues of men: and the Jews say that Ismael was the first to make idols of clay. Moreover, idolatry ceased to a great extent in the sixth age. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.

Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 6): "It was not possible to learn, for the first time, except from their" (i.e. the demons') "teaching, what each of them desired or disliked, and by what name to invite or compel him: so as to give birth to the magic arts and their professors": and the same observation seems to apply to idolatry. Therefore idolatry had no cause on the part of man.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 14:14): "By the vanity of men they," i.e. idols, "came into the world."

_I answer that,_ Idolatry had a twofold cause. One was a dispositive cause; this was on the part of man, and in three ways. First, on account of his inordinate affections, forasmuch as he gave other men divine honor, through either loving or revering them too much. This cause is a.s.signed (Wis. 14:15): "A father being afflicted with bitter grief, made to himself the image of his son, who was quickly taken away: and him who then had died as a man he began to wors.h.i.+p as a G.o.d." The same pa.s.sage goes on to say (Wis. 14:21) that "men serving either their affection, or their kings, gave the incommunicable name [Vulg.: 'names']," i.e. of the G.o.dhead, "to stones and wood."

Secondly, because man takes a natural pleasure in representations, as the Philosopher observes (Poet. iv), wherefore as soon as the uncultured man saw human images skillfully fas.h.i.+oned by the diligence of the craftsman, he gave them divine wors.h.i.+p; hence it is written (Wis. 13:11-17): "If an artist, a carpenter, hath cut down a tree, proper for his use, in the wood ... and by the skill of his art fas.h.i.+oneth it, and maketh it like the image of a man ... and then maketh prayer to it, inquiring concerning his substance, and his children, or his marriage." Thirdly, on account of their ignorance of the true G.o.d, inasmuch as through failing to consider His excellence men gave divine wors.h.i.+p to certain creatures, on account of their beauty or power, wherefore it is written (Wis. 13:1, 2): "All men ... neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman, but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and the moon, to be the G.o.ds that rule the world."

The other cause of idolatry was completive, and this was on the part of the demons, who offered themselves to be wors.h.i.+pped by men, by giving answers in the idols, and doing things which to men seemed marvelous. Hence it is written (Ps. 95:5): "All the G.o.ds of the Gentiles are devils."

Reply Obj. 1: The dispositive cause of idolatry was, on the part of man, a defect of nature, either through ignorance in his intellect, or disorder in his affections, as stated above; and this pertains to guilt. Again, idolatry is stated to be the cause, beginning and end of all sin, because there is no kind of sin that idolatry does not produce at some time, either through leading expressly to that sin by causing it, or through being an occasion thereof, either as a beginning or as an end, in so far as certain sins were employed in the wors.h.i.+p of idols; such as homicides, mutilations, and so forth.

Nevertheless certain sins may precede idolatry and dispose man thereto.

Reply Obj. 2: There was no idolatry in the first age, owing to the recent remembrance of the creation of the world, so that man still retained in his mind the knowledge of one G.o.d. In the sixth age idolatry was banished by the doctrine and power of Christ, who triumphed over the devil.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the consummative cause of idolatry.

_______________________