QUESTION 20: OF DESPAIR
We must now consider the contrary vices; (1) despair; (2) presumption.
Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether despair is a sin?
(2) Whether it can be without unbelief?
(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins?
(4) Whether it arises from sloth?
Article 1: Whether despair is a sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not a sin. For every sin includes
conversion to a mutable good, together with aversion from the immutable
good, as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19). But despair includes no
conversion to a mutable good. Therefore it is not a sin.
Objection 2: Further, that which grows from a good root, seems to be no sin,
because "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Mt. 7:18). Now
despair seems to grow from a good root, viz. fear of God, or from horror
at the greatness of one's own sins. Therefore despair is not a sin.
Objection 3: Further, if despair were a sin, it would be a sin also for the
damned to despair. But this is not imputed to them as their fault but as
part of their damnation. Therefore neither is it imputed to wayfarers as
their fault, so that it is not a sin.
On the contrary, That which leads men to sin, seems not only to be a sin
itself, but a source of sins. Now such is despair, for the Apostle says
of certain men (Eph. 4:19): "Who, despairing, have given themselves up to
lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness and [Vulg.: 'unto']
covetousness." Therefore despair is not only a sin but also the origin of
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 2) affirmation
and negation in the intellect correspond to search and avoidance in the
appetite; while truth and falsehood in the intellect correspond to good
and evil in the appetite. Consequently every appetitive movement which is
conformed to a true intellect, is good in itself, while every appetitive
movement which is conformed to a false intellect is evil in itself and
sinful. Now the true opinion of the intellect about God is that from Him
comes salvation to mankind, and pardon to sinners, according to Ezech.
18:23, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should be
converted, and live" [*Vulg.: 'Is it My will that a sinner should die . .
. and not that he should be converted and live?' Cf. Ezech. 33:11]: while
it is a false opinion that He refuses pardon to the repentant sinner, or
that He does not turn sinners to Himself by sanctifying grace. Therefore,
just as the movement of hope, which is in conformity with the true
opinion, is praiseworthy and virtuous, so the contrary movement of
despair, which is in conformity with the false opinion about God, is
vicious and sinful.
Reply to Objection 1: In every mortal sin there is, in some way, aversion from
the immutable good, and conversion to a mutable good, but not always in
the same way. Because, since the theological virtues have God for their
object, the sins which are contrary to them, such as hatred of God,
despair and unbelief, consist principally in aversion from the immutable
good; but, consequently, they imply conversion to a mutable good, in so
far as the soul that is a deserter from God, must necessarily turn to
other things. Other sins, however, consist principally in conversion to a
mutable good, and, consequently, in aversion from the immutable good:
because the fornicator intends, not to depart from God, but to enjoy
carnal pleasure, the result of which is that he departs from God.
Reply to Objection 2: A thing may grow from a virtuous root in two ways: first,
directly and on the part of the virtue itself; even as an act proceeds
from a habit: and in this way no sin can grow from a virtuous root, for
in this sense Augustine declared (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18,19) that "no man
makes evil use of virtue." Secondly, a thing proceeds from a virtue
indirectly, or is occasioned by a virtue, and in this way nothing hinders
a sin proceeding from a virtue: thus sometimes men pride themselves of
their virtues, according to Augustine (Ep. ccxi): "Pride lies in wait for
good works that they may die." In this way fear of God or horror of one's
own sins may lead to despair, in so far as man makes evil use of those
good things, by allowing them to be an occasion of despair.
Reply to Objection 3: The damned are outside the pale of hope on account of the
impossibility of returning to happiness: hence it is not imputed to them
that they hope not, but it is a part of their damnation. Even so, it
would be no sin for a wayfarer to despair of obtaining that which he had
no natural capacity for obtaining, or which was not due to be obtained by
him; for instance, if a physician were to despair of healing some sick
man, or if anyone were to despair of ever becoming rich.
Article 2: Whether there can be despair without unbelief?
Objection 1: It would seem that there can be no despair without unbelief. For
the certainty of hope is derived from faith; and so long as the cause
remains the effect is not done away. Therefore a man cannot lose the
certainty of hope, by despairing, unless his faith be removed.
Objection 2: Further, to prefer one's own guilt to God's mercy and goodness,
is to deny the infinity of God's goodness and mercy, and so savors of
unbelief. But whoever despairs, prefers his own guilt to the Divine mercy
and goodness, according to Gn. 4:13: "My iniquity is greater than that I
may deserve pardon." Therefore whoever despairs, is an unbeliever.
Objection 3: Further, whoever falls into a condemned heresy, is an unbeliever.
But he that despairs seems to fall into a condemned heresy, viz. that of
the Novatians, who say that there is no pardon for sins after Baptism.
Therefore it seems that whoever despairs, is an unbeliever.
On the contrary, If we remove that which follows, that which precedes
remains. But hope follows faith, as stated above (Question , Article ). Therefore
when hope is removed, faith can remain; so that, not everyone who
despairs, is an unbeliever.
I answer that, Unbelief pertains to the intellect, but despair, to the
appetite: and the intellect is about universals, while the appetite is
moved in connection with particulars, since the appetitive movement is
from the soul towards things, which, in themselves, are particular. Now
it may happen that a man, while having a right opinion in the universal,
is not rightly disposed as to his appetitive movement, his estimate being
corrupted in a particular matter, because, in order to pass from the
universal opinion to the appetite for a particular thing, it is necessary
to have a particular estimate (De Anima iii, 2), just as it is impossible
to infer a particular conclusion from an universal proposition, except
through the holding of a particular proposition. Hence it is that a man,
while having right faith, in the universal, fails in an appetitive
movement, in regard to some particular, his particular estimate being
corrupted by a habit or a passion, just as the fornicator, by choosing
fornication as a good for himself at this particular moment, has a
corrupt estimate in a particular matter, although he retains the true
universal estimate according to faith, viz. that fornication is a mortal
sin. In the same way, a man while retaining in the universal, the true
estimate of faith, viz. that there is in the Church the power of
forgiving sins, may suffer a movement of despair, to wit, that for him,
being in such a state, there is no hope of pardon, his estimate being
corrupted in a particular matter. In this way there can be despair, just
as there can be other mortal sins, without belief.
Reply to Objection 1: The effect is done away, not only when the first cause is
removed, but also when the secondary cause is removed. Hence the movement
of hope can be done away, not only by the removal of the universal
estimate of faith, which is, so to say, the first cause of the certainty
of hope, but also by the removal of the particular estimate, which is the
secondary cause, as it were.
Reply to Objection 2: If anyone were to judge, in universal, that God's mercy is
not infinite, he would be an unbeliever. But he who despairs judges not
thus, but that, for him in that state, on account of some particular
disposition, there is no hope of the Divine mercy.
The same answer applies to the Third Objection, since the Novatians
denied, in universal, that there is remission of sins in the Church.
Article 3: Whether despair is the greatest of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that despair is not the greatest of sins. For there
can be despair without unbelief, as stated above (Article ). But unbelief is
the greatest of sins because it overthrows the foundation of the
spiritual edifice. Therefore despair is not the greatest of sins.
Objection 2: Further, a greater evil is opposed to a greater good, as the
Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 10). But charity is greater than hope,
according to 1 Cor. 13:13. Therefore hatred of God is a greater sin than
Objection 3: Further, in the sin of despair there is nothing but inordinate
aversion from God: whereas in other sins there is not only inordinate
aversion from God, but also an inordinate conversion. Therefore the sin
of despair is not more but less grave than other sins.
On the contrary, An incurable sin seems to be most grievous, according
to Jer. 30:12: "Thy bruise is incurable, thy wound is very grievous." Now
the sin of despair is incurable, according to Jer. 15:18: "My wound is
desperate so as to refuse to be healed." [*Vulg.: 'Why is my wound,'
etc.] Therefore despair is a most grievous sin.
I answer that, Those sins which are contrary to the theological virtues
are in themselves more grievous than others: because, since the
theological virtues have God for their object, the sins which are opposed
to them imply aversion from God directly and principally. Now every
mortal sin takes its principal malice and gravity from the fact of its
turning away from God, for if it were possible to turn to a mutable good,
even inordinately, without turning away from God, it would not be a
mortal sin. Consequently a sin which, first and of its very nature,
includes aversion from God, is most grievous among mortal sins.
Now unbelief, despair and hatred of God are opposed to the theological
virtues: and among them, if we compare hatred of God and unbelief to
despair, we shall find that, in themselves, that is, in respect of their
proper species, they are more grievous. For unbelief is due to a man not
believing God's own truth; while the hatred of God arises from man's will
being opposed to God's goodness itself; whereas despair consists in a man
ceasing to hope for a share of God's goodness. Hence it is clear that
unbelief and hatred of God are against God as He is in Himself, while
despair is against Him, according as His good is partaken of by us.
Wherefore strictly speaking it is more grievous sin to disbelieve God's
truth, or to hate God, than not to hope to receive glory from Him.
If, however, despair be compared to the other two sins from our point of
view, then despair is more dangerous, since hope withdraws us from evils
and induces us to seek for good things, so that when hope is given up,
men rush headlong into sin, and are drawn away from good works. Wherefore
a gloss on Prov. 24:10, "If thou lose hope being weary in the day of
distress, thy strength shall be diminished," says: "Nothing is more
hateful than despair, for the man that has it loses his constancy both in
the every day toils of this life, and, what is worse, in the battle of
faith." And Isidore says (De Sum. Bono ii, 14): "To commit a crime is to
kill the soul, but to despair is to fall into hell."
Article 4: Whether despair arises from sloth?
Objection 1: It would seem that despair does not arise from sloth. Because
different causes do not give rise to one same effect. Now despair of the
future life arises from lust, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45).
Therefore it does not arise from sloth.
Objection 2: Further, just as despair is contrary to hope, so is sloth
contrary to spiritual joy. But spiritual joy arises from hope, according
to Rm. 12:12, "rejoicing in hope." Therefore sloth arises from despair,
and not vice versa.
Objection 3: Further, contrary effects have contrary causes. Now hope, the
contrary of which is despair, seems to proceed from the consideration of
Divine favors, especially the Incarnation, for Augustine says (De Trin.
xiii, 10): "Nothing was so necessary to raise our hope, than that we
should be shown how much God loves us. Now what greater proof could we
have of this than that God's Son should deign to unite Himself to our
nature?" Therefore despair arises rather from the neglect of the above
consideration than from sloth.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 45) reckons despair among the
effects of sloth.
I answer that, As stated above (Question , Article ; FS, Question , Article ), the
object of hope is a good, difficult but possible to obtain by oneself or
by another. Consequently the hope of obtaining happiness may be lacking
in a person in two ways: first, through his not deeming it an arduous
good; secondly, through his deeming it impossible to obtain either by
himself, or by another. Now, the fact that spiritual goods taste good to
us no more, or seem to be goods of no great account, is chiefly due to
our affections being infected with the love of bodily pleasures, among
which, sexual pleasures hold the first place: for the love of those
pleasures leads man to have a distaste for spiritual things, and not to
hope for them as arduous goods. In this way despair is caused by lust.
On the other hand, the fact that a man deems an arduous good impossible
to obtain, either by himself or by another, is due to his being over
downcast, because when this state of mind dominates his affections, it
seems to him that he will never be able to rise to any good. And since
sloth is a sadness that casts down the spirit, in this way despair is
born of sloth.
Now this is the proper object of hope---that the thing is possible,
because the good and the arduous regard other passions also. Hence
despair is born of sloth in a more special way: though it may arise from
lust, for the reason given above.
This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
Reply to Objection 2: According to the Philosopher (Rhet. i, 11), just as hope
gives rise to joy, so, when a man is joyful he has greater hope: and,
accordingly, those who are sorrowful fall the more easily into despair,
according to 2 Cor. 2:7: "Lest . . . such an one be swallowed up by
overmuch sorrow." Yet, since the object of hope is good, to which the
appetite tends naturally, and which it shuns, not naturally but only on
account of some supervening obstacle, it follows that, more directly,
hope gives birth to joy, while on the contrary despair is born of sorrow.
Reply to Objection 3: This very neglect to consider the Divine favors arises from
sloth. For when a man is influenced by a certain passion he considers
chiefly the things which pertain to that passion: so that a man who is
full of sorrow does not easily think of great and joyful things, but only
of sad things, unless by a great effort he turn his thoughts away from