o pertain
to lust, but rather to deceitfulness, which is a daughter of
covetousness, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45). Therefore the
aforesaid vices do not arise from lust.

Obj. 3: Further, the aforesaid vices are connected with some defect
of reason. Now spiritual vices are more akin to the reason than
carnal vices. Therefore the aforesaid vices arise from spiritual
vices rather than from carnal vices.

_On the contrary,_ Gregory declares (Moral. xxxi, 45) that the
aforesaid vices arise from lust.

_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher states (Ethic. vi, 5) "pleasure
above all corrupts the estimate of prudence," and chiefly sexual
pleasure which absorbs the mind, and draws it to sensible delight.
Now the perfection of prudence and of every intellectual virtue
consists in abstraction from sensible objects. Wherefore, since the
aforesaid vices involve a defect of prudence and of the practical
reason, as stated above (AA. 2, 5), it follows that they arise
chiefly from lust.

Reply Obj. 1: Envy and anger cause inconstancy by drawing away the
reason to something else; whereas lust causes inconstancy by
destroying the judgment of reason entirely. Hence the Philosopher
says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "the man who is incontinent through anger
listens to reason, yet not perfectly, whereas he who is incontinent
through lust does not listen to it at all."

Reply Obj. 2: Duplicity also is something resulting from lust, just
as inconstancy is, if by duplicity we understand fluctuation of the
mind from one thing to another. Hence Terence says (Eunuch. act 1,
sc. 1) that "love leads to war, and likewise to peace and truce."

Reply Obj. 3: Carnal vices destroy the judgment of reason so much the
more as they lead us away from reason.
_______________________

QUESTION 54

OF NEGLIGENCE
(In Three Articles)

We must now consider negligence, under which head there are three
points of inquiry:

(1) Whether negligence is a special sin?

(2) To which virtue is it opposed?

(3) Whether negligence is a mortal sin?
_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 54, Art. 1]

Whether Negligence Is a Special Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that negligence is not a special sin. For
negligence is opposed to diligence. But diligence is required in
every virtue. Therefore negligence is not a special sin.

Obj. 2: Further, that which is common to every sin is not a special
sin. Now negligence is common to every sin, because h